El-Mouelhy v Reid [2020] NSWSC 676

The defendant is permitted to obtain refresher reports from Dr Virgona and Dr Dalton due to the relevance and age of prior psychiatric/medical evidence, but is not permitted to introduce an additional occupational therapist’s evidence at this late stage as it would be unfair and jeopardise hearing preparation.

Parties: Plaintiff: Nadia El-Mouelhy; Defendant: Richard Reid
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 01 June 2020
Procedural Posture: Civil Negligence Claim / Interlocutory Application for Medical Examinations and Expert Evidence Prior to Hearing
Outcome: Notice of motion partly granted
Legal Topics: Medical Examinations, Expert Evidence, Interlocutory Orders

Civil Procedure Medical Examinations Expert Evidence Interlocutory Orders

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 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Nadia El-Mouelhy

Plaintiff

Richard Reid

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence Claim / Interlocutory Application for Medical Examinations and Expert Evidence Prior to Hearing

Legal Issues

1 Whether the plaintiff should attend further medical examinations
2 Whether the defendant should be permitted to obtain further expert evidence
3 Whether expert evidence from two experts on the same topic should be obtained

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Notice of motion partly granted

Orders

The plaintiff is to attend examinations with Dr Angelo Virgona on 9 June 2020 and Dr Seamus Dalton on 2 June 2020.
The defendant is to serve refresher evidence, in the form of further reports from Dr Virgona and Dr Dalton, by 30 June 2020.