Harris v Bellemore (No 6) [2013] NSWSC 1859

Harris v Bellemore (No 6) [2013] NSWSC 1859

The remitted hearing was not a new trial at large, but fairness required admission of the further reports of Mr Simonis and Professor Saleh because they updated and explained the plaintiff's current condition and its connection with the procurvatum. The reports of Ms Tchan and Dr Barold were rejected because they did not sufficiently address the discrete remitted issue of further damages attributable to the procurvatum condition.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence Action; Interlocutory Applications Concerning Admission of Further Expert Medical Evidence / Proceedings Remitted After Appeal for Determination of Specified Questions About the Procurvatum Condition
Outcome
Further expert medical reports of Mr Simonis and Professor Saleh admitted; further reports of Ms Tchan and Dr Barold rejected.
Legal Topics
['remitter After Appeal' 'scope of Further Evidence' 'expert Medical Reports' 'procurvatum Condition' 'fair Trial']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence' 'medical Negligence' 'personal Injury Damages'] ['remitter After Appeal' 'scope of Further Evidence' 'expert Medical Reports' 'procurvatum Condition' 'fair Trial']

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 Action; Interlocutory Applications Concerning Admission of Further Expert Medical Evidence / Proceedings Remitted After Appeal for Determination of Specified Questions About the Procurvatum Condition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be allowed to adduce further expert medical reports on the questions remitted by the Court of Appeal.' "Whether the remitted hearing was a new trial at large or confined by the Court of Appeal's orders and reasons." 'Whether the reports of Mr Simonis, Professor Saleh, Ms Tchan and Dr Barold addressed matters properly before the Court on remitter.']

Ratio Decidendi

The remitted hearing was not a new trial at large, but fairness required admission of the further reports of Mr Simonis and Professor Saleh because they updated and explained the plaintiff's current condition and its connection with the procurvatum. The reports of Ms Tchan and Dr Barold were rejected because they did not sufficiently address the discrete remitted issue of further damages attributable to the procurvatum condition.

Court Disposition

Further expert medical reports of Mr Simonis and Professor Saleh admitted; further reports of Ms Tchan and Dr Barold rejected.

Orders

  • ['The report of Mr Simonis dated 21 March 2012 is admitted.' 'The earlier report of Mr Simonis dated 24 May 2009 is admitted.' 'The report of Professor Saleh dated 23 March 2012 is admitted.' 'The report of Heather Tchan dated 18 August 2013 is rejected.' 'The report of Dr Barold dated 28 October 2013 is excluded.']