Kanar Saber v Omar Ali and the Nominal Defendant (No 3) [2011] NSWDC 190

Kanar Saber v Omar Ali and the Nominal Defendant (No 3) [2011] NSWDC 190

The substance of the question was allowed because the psychiatrist was being asked to comment on evidence he had heard in court, which was treated as an update of material in his earlier reports; however, the question should not seek an opinion outside his expertise and should be divided to distinguish the two diagnosed psychiatric conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedural Ruling During Expert Evidence
Outcome
Question allowed, subject to being broken into two questions distinguishing the two diagnosed conditions.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'psychiatric Opinion' 'objection to Question' 'ucpr 31.28']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['expert Evidence' 'psychiatric Opinion' 'objection to Question' 'ucpr 31.28']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedural Ruling During Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's expert psychiatrist could be asked to describe how the diagnosed major depressive disorder and post-traumatic-stress disorder showed the need for care described by the plaintiff's personal carer." 'Whether the question improperly asked the psychiatrist to go beyond his expertise by commenting on physical disabilities and domestic assistance.' 'Whether the substance of the opinion should have been put into a report under UCPR 31.28.']

Ratio Decidendi

The substance of the question was allowed because the psychiatrist was being asked to comment on evidence he had heard in court, which was treated as an update of material in his earlier reports; however, the question should not seek an opinion outside his expertise and should be divided to distinguish the two diagnosed psychiatric conditions.

Court Disposition

Question allowed, subject to being broken into two questions distinguishing the two diagnosed conditions.

Orders

  • ['The question is allowed.' 'Ms Welsh must break the question up into two, to distinguish between the two diagnosed conditions.']