LK v Parkinson [2009] NSWDC 47
The question was disallowed because, given the unclear operation of Civil Liability Act 2002 s 5D(3)(b), it would be an absurdity to allow a question to be asked on the contingency that the answer would be disallowed unless certain conditions applied, and in any event allowing the question would be unfairly prejudicial to the plaintiff under Evidence Act 1995 s 135.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 19 March 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Ruling on Objection During Cross Examination
- Outcome
- Question disallowed
- Legal Topics
- ['civil Liability Act 2002 S 5 D' 'hypothetical Question' 'causation' 'evidence Act 1995 S 135' 'unfair Prejudice']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Objection During Cross Examination
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the defendant could ask the plaintiff a hypothetical question about what she would have chosen if advised of surgical risks with tubal ligation.' "Whether Civil Liability Act 2002 s 5D permitted the question or rendered any answer inadmissible unless against the plaintiff's interest." 'Whether the question should be disallowed because of the danger of unfair prejudice under Evidence Act 1995 s 135.']
Ratio Decidendi
The question was disallowed because, given the unclear operation of Civil Liability Act 2002 s 5D(3)(b), it would be an absurdity to allow a question to be asked on the contingency that the answer would be disallowed unless certain conditions applied, and in any event allowing the question would be unfairly prejudicial to the plaintiff under Evidence Act 1995 s 135.
Court Disposition
Question disallowed
Orders
- ['The question was disallowed.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment