Miller v Jones (No 5) [2019] NSWSC 1448

Miller v Jones (No 5) [2019] NSWSC 1448

Although the Court was satisfied that Dr Caldwell's experience and later correspondence could address the Code of Conduct objection, the impugned opinions were inadmissible because the reports did not expose the reasoning process by which Dr Caldwell moved from the history, examination, X-rays or surgical observations to the opinions that the reconstruction or graft was poorly performed, inadequate, malpositioned or would have required re-surgery. Section 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) required a more stringent exposition of reasoning when the reports were relied on as expert opinion evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Negligence Proceedings; Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence / Objections by the Defendant to Parts of Dr Caldwell's Reports Sought to Be Relied Upon by the Plaintiff
Outcome
The objections to Dr Caldwell's report are upheld.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Expert Opinion' 'expert Witness Code of Conduct' 'reasoning Process Underpinning Expert Opinion' 'section 79 Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'negligence'] ['expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Expert Opinion' 'expert Witness Code of Conduct' 'reasoning Process Underpinning Expert Opinion' 'section 79 Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)']

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

Negligence Proceedings; Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence / Objections by the Defendant to Parts of Dr Caldwell's Reports Sought to Be Relied Upon by the Plaintiff

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether parts of Dr Caldwell's reports should be rejected because the reports did not contain an acknowledgment that he had read and agreed to be bound by the Expert Witness Code of Conduct." "Whether Dr Caldwell's opinions were admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) where the reports did not expose the reasoning process underlying the opinions."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Court was satisfied that Dr Caldwell's experience and later correspondence could address the Code of Conduct objection, the impugned opinions were inadmissible because the reports did not expose the reasoning process by which Dr Caldwell moved from the history, examination, X-rays or surgical observations to the opinions that the reconstruction or graft was poorly performed, inadequate, malpositioned or would have required re-surgery. Section 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) required a more stringent exposition of reasoning when the reports were relied on as expert opinion evidence.

Court Disposition

The objections to Dr Caldwell's report are upheld.

Orders

  • ["The objections to Dr Caldwell's reports made by the defendant are upheld."]