Sourian by his tutor Sourian v Northern Sydney Local Health District [2020] NSWSC 1657

Sourian by his tutor Sourian v Northern Sydney Local Health District [2020] NSWSC 1657

The application for dismissal was refused because the delay by the plaintiff was adequately explained, and dismissal would cause significant prejudice as the claim would become statute-barred. The overriding purpose of the Civil Procedure Act supported allowing the plaintiff more time to serve expert reports. The plaintiff was directed to serve outstanding reports by 14 January 2021, and to pay the defendants' costs of the notices of motion.

Parties
Plaintiff: Jerry Sourian by his tutor Leonor Elizabeth Sourian; First Defendant: Northern Sydney Local Health District; Second Defendant: State of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence and Intentional Tort Claim / Application for Dismissal of Proceedings and Related Procedural Directions
Outcome
Application for dismissal of proceedings refused. Directions given for service of expert reports. Plaintiff to pay defendants' costs of notices of motion.
Legal Topics
Summary Disposal, Dismissal of Proceedings, Professional Negligence, Failure to Serve Experts' Reports, Want of Due Despatch
Civil Procedure Summary Disposal Dismissal of Proceedings Professional Negligence Failure to Serve Experts' Reports Want of Due Despatch

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jerry Sourian by his tutor Leonor Elizabeth Sourian

Plaintiff

Northern Sydney Local Health District

First Defendant

State of New South Wales

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence and Intentional Tort Claim / Application for Dismissal of Proceedings and Related Procedural Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be dismissed for failure to serve expert reports and want of due despatch
  2. 2 Whether further time should be allowed for serving expert reports
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the notices of motion

Ratio Decidendi

The application for dismissal was refused because the delay by the plaintiff was adequately explained, and dismissal would cause significant prejudice as the claim would become statute-barred. The overriding purpose of the Civil Procedure Act supported allowing the plaintiff more time to serve expert reports. The plaintiff was directed to serve outstanding reports by 14 January 2021, and to pay the defendants' costs of the notices of motion.

Court Disposition

Application for dismissal of proceedings refused. Directions given for service of expert reports. Plaintiff to pay defendants' costs of notices of motion.

Orders

  • Refuse the defendants' application for dismissal of the proceedings.
  • Direct the plaintiff to serve any outstanding expert reports by 14 January 2021.