Harris v Bellemore (No 5) [2013] NSWSC 770

Harris v Bellemore (No 5) [2013] NSWSC 770

The plaintiff is not permitted to adduce further evidence except for updating evidence or fresh evidence directly responsive to change since hearing, because the issues remitted are limited by the Court of Appeal; claims for psychiatric harm and related evidence are outside authority conferred by the remitter and are foreclosed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to Adduce Further Evidence After Remitter From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed. Leave granted to call only specific updating evidence as outlined.
Legal Topics
['medical Negligence' 'remitter' 'adducing of Evidence' 'scope of Retrial' 'limits of Appellate Remitter']
['torts' 'civil Procedure'] ['medical Negligence' 'remitter' 'adducing of Evidence' 'scope of Retrial' 'limits of Appellate Remitter']

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

Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to Adduce Further Evidence After Remitter From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether plaintiff should have leave to adduce further evidence on questions remitted for new trial' 'Scope of authority on remitter as to evidence allowed' 'Whether evidence as to psychiatric harm or damages can be adduced']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff is not permitted to adduce further evidence except for updating evidence or fresh evidence directly responsive to change since hearing, because the issues remitted are limited by the Court of Appeal; claims for psychiatric harm and related evidence are outside authority conferred by the remitter and are foreclosed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Leave granted to call only specific updating evidence as outlined.

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff's notice of motion dated 24 April 2012 dismissed." 'Leave will not be refused to call updating evidence as to any change since the prior hearing in plaintiff’s physical condition attributable to the procurvatum; fresh evidence as to cost of such changed needs; and fresh evidence as to the effect of such...