Perry v Dr Lennox [2012] NSWSC 207

Perry v Dr Lennox [2012] NSWSC 207

The line of cross-examination regarding alternative post-operative pain relief is not outside the scope of the pleaded case and is relevant, as the content of the obligation to discuss alternatives and risks is inherent to the dispute between the parties, particularly given the reliance on s 5O of the Civil Liability Act 2002.

Parties
Plaintiff: Robyn Perry; First Defendant: Dr Haig Lennox; Second Defendant: Dr Phillip Stephens; Fourth Defendant: Tamara Private Hospital
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling / Interlocutory Objection During Cross Examination
Outcome
Question allowed
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Consent to Medical Treatment, Evidence, Cross Examination, Relevance
Procedure Medical Negligence Pleadings Consent to Medical Treatment Evidence Cross Examination Relevance

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robyn Perry

Plaintiff

Dr Haig Lennox

First Defendant

Dr Phillip Stephens

Second Defendant

Tamara Private Hospital

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procedural Ruling / Interlocutory Objection During Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a line of cross-examination regarding alternative post-operative pain relief is relevant and arises on the plaintiff's pleaded case
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings encompass an alleged failure to provide information to obtain informed consent for an epidural

Ratio Decidendi

The line of cross-examination regarding alternative post-operative pain relief is not outside the scope of the pleaded case and is relevant, as the content of the obligation to discuss alternatives and risks is inherent to the dispute between the parties, particularly given the reliance on s 5O of the Civil Liability Act 2002.

Court Disposition

Question allowed

Orders

  • Objection to cross-examination question overruled; question allowed