Harris v Bellemore [2009] NSWSC 1497

Harris v Bellemore [2009] NSWSC 1497

The number of expert witnesses for psychiatric evidence should be limited to two per party as permitted under the Practice Note, given risk of repetition and unnecessary cost; leave is granted for the plaintiff to rely on Mr Kossmann's reports in view of exceptional procedural developments, including the late appointment of defendant's expert; and expert questions seeking opinions solely on credibility of the defendant are inadmissible, as section 108C of the Evidence Act is not intended to cover such matters in medical negligence cases.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence / Interlocutory Ruling During Part Heard Trial
Outcome
Interlocutory: procedural orders made regarding expert evidence and questions to be put to experts.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'medical Negligence' 'credibility of Witnesses']
['civil Procedure'] ['expert Evidence' 'medical Negligence' 'credibility of Witnesses']

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 / Interlocutory Ruling During Part Heard Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff may call three psychiatrists and a general practitioner as expert witnesses for concurrent evidence on psychiatric issues' 'Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to rely on the late-served reports of Mr Kossmann' 'Which draft questions may be directed to the expert witnesses on liability, particularly regarding the credibility of the defendant doctor']

Ratio Decidendi

The number of expert witnesses for psychiatric evidence should be limited to two per party as permitted under the Practice Note, given risk of repetition and unnecessary cost; leave is granted for the plaintiff to rely on Mr Kossmann's reports in view of exceptional procedural developments, including the late appointment of defendant's expert; and expert questions seeking opinions solely on credibility of the defendant are inadmissible, as section 108C of the Evidence Act is not intended to cover such matters in medical negligence cases.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory: procedural orders made regarding expert evidence and questions to be put to experts.

Orders

  • ['Expert witness questions for psychiatric evidence as per attachment B to earlier court directions.' 'Each party limited to two expert witnesses on psychiatric questions.' "Plaintiff granted leave to rely on Mr Kossmann's reports dated 16, 17, and 28 April 2009." "Plaintiff's draft questions 2–8, 10–12, 21, 24, 29,...