Harris v Bellemore [2009] NSWSC 1496

Harris v Bellemore [2009] NSWSC 1496

Dr Kitchener's second report was inadmissible as it did not concern matters based on specialised knowledge relating to the likelihood of witness truthfulness in accordance with s 108C of the Evidence Act. It merely stated that metallic objects are opaque to x-rays—a proposition not within the relevant area of specialised credibility assessment as contemplated by the statute.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence Proceedings / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Outcome
Tender rejected
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'credibility' 'evidence Admissibility']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'medical Negligence'] ['expert Evidence' 'credibility' 'evidence Admissibility']

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 Proceedings / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Dr Kitchener's second expert report is admissible as evidence affecting the credibility of Dr Bellemore under s 108C of the Evidence Act 1995"]

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Kitchener's second report was inadmissible as it did not concern matters based on specialised knowledge relating to the likelihood of witness truthfulness in accordance with s 108C of the Evidence Act. It merely stated that metallic objects are opaque to x-rays—a proposition not within the relevant area of specialised credibility assessment as contemplated by the statute.

Court Disposition

Tender rejected

Orders

  • ["The tender of Dr Kitchener's second report dated 8 April 2009 is rejected (MFI 44)."]