Plaintiff [name withheld] v Stapleton [2017] NSWSC 914

Plaintiff [name withheld] v Stapleton [2017] NSWSC 914

Although the first defendant's request for an examination by his chosen psychiatrist was reasonable, the plaintiff's objection was also reasonable in light of his evidence and psychiatric evidence about the risk of further psychological harm. Balancing the parties' positions, including the first defendant's exposure to cross-claims, the issues identified by the first defendant were either speculative or already amply addressed in existing psychiatric reports. The just determination of the proceedings therefore did not require the plaintiff to attend a further psychiatric examination.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Action for Damages for Personal Injury Due to Alleged Sexual Assaults; Procedural Motion Concerning Psychiatric Medical Examination Under R 23.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw). / Hearing of the Plaintiff's Motion Seeking to Be Excused From Attending a Psychiatric Examination Nominated by the First Defendant.
Outcome
Requirement for the plaintiff to attend the first defendant's proposed psychiatric examination dispensed with.
Legal Topics
['medical Examination of Plaintiff' 'psychiatric Examination' 'balancing Personal Liberty and Fair Trial' 'sexual Assault Allegations' 'defence Expert Evidence' 'ucpr R 23.2 Notice']
['civil Procedure' 'expert Evidence' 'personal Injury' 'psychiatric Injury'] ['medical Examination of Plaintiff' 'psychiatric Examination' 'balancing Personal Liberty and Fair Trial' 'sexual Assault Allegations' 'defence Expert Evidence' 'ucpr R 23.2 Notice']

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

Action for Damages for Personal Injury Due to Alleged Sexual Assaults; Procedural Motion Concerning Psychiatric Medical Examination Under R 23.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw). / Hearing of the Plaintiff's Motion Seeking to Be Excused From Attending a Psychiatric Examination Nominated by the First Defendant.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be required to attend a further psychiatric examination requested by the first defendant pursuant to r 23.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' "How to balance the first defendant's interest in defending liability, damages and cross-claims against the plaintiff's objection based on risk of psychological harm from further examination." 'Whether the existing psychiatric reports sufficiently addressed the issues for a just determination without compelling a further examination.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the first defendant's request for an examination by his chosen psychiatrist was reasonable, the plaintiff's objection was also reasonable in light of his evidence and psychiatric evidence about the risk of further psychological harm. Balancing the parties' positions, including the first defendant's exposure to cross-claims, the issues identified by the first defendant were either speculative or already amply addressed in existing psychiatric reports. The just determination of the proceedings therefore did not require the plaintiff to attend a further psychiatric examination.

Court Disposition

Requirement for the plaintiff to attend the first defendant's proposed psychiatric examination dispensed with.

Orders

  • ["The requirement on the plaintiff to attend an examination in accordance with the first defendant's notice pursuant to r 23.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) served on 18 April 2017 is dispensed with."]