KF By Her Tutor RF v Sydney Children's Hospital Specialty Network (known as the Children's Hospital Westmead) and Anor [2011] NSWSC 874

KF By Her Tutor RF v Sydney Children's Hospital Specialty Network (known as the Children's Hospital Westmead) and Anor [2011] NSWSC 874

Leave was refused because the joint expert conference and report process should proceed in the usual way without involvement of legal representatives, there was heightened sensitivity given the earlier controversy and reconvened conference process, communications about breach issues before the further joint report carried at least a risk or perception of affecting that process, and the Plaintiff had not shown particular prejudice because the further joint report would be provided about a month before the hearing and causation issues could still be discussed in the meantime.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence Claim / Interlocutory Application for Directions in Long Case Management
Outcome
Application for leave refused.
Legal Topics
['joint Conferences of Expert Witnesses' 'expert Evidence' 'breach of Duty Experts' 'leave for Legal Representatives to Confer With Experts' 'case Management Directions']
['practice and Procedure' 'medical Negligence'] ['joint Conferences of Expert Witnesses' 'expert Evidence' 'breach of Duty Experts' 'leave for Legal Representatives to Confer With Experts' 'case Management Directions']

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

Medical Negligence Claim / Interlocutory Application for Directions in Long Case Management

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Plaintiff's legal representatives should be granted leave to confer with the Plaintiff's breach of duty experts before the reconvened breach experts' joint conference and before provision of the further joint breach experts' report." "Whether maintaining the usual joint conference procedure would prejudice the Plaintiff's preparation for the scheduled hearing."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the joint expert conference and report process should proceed in the usual way without involvement of legal representatives, there was heightened sensitivity given the earlier controversy and reconvened conference process, communications about breach issues before the further joint report carried at least a risk or perception of affecting that process, and the Plaintiff had not shown particular prejudice because the further joint report would be provided about a month before the hearing and causation issues could still be discussed in the meantime.

Court Disposition

Application for leave refused.

Orders

  • ["Leave refused for the Plaintiff's legal representatives to confer on breach issues with Dr Smith and Dr Levy prior to the provision of the further joint breach experts' report." 'Orders 1-13 made in accordance with the Consent Orders signed by the legal representatives for the parties.' 'Matter remains listed for...