Arnold v Matsias [2017] NSWSC 173

Arnold v Matsias [2017] NSWSC 173

The disputed interrogatories did not require further answers: interrogatories 4 and 6 had been answered because 'investigation' did not include physical examination; interrogatories 5 and 7 had been properly answered notwithstanding possible expert dispute about the adequacy of the warning; and interrogatories 12(d)(i) and (ii), 16(f)(i) and (ii), and 20(f)(i) and (ii) called for answers only if the relevant risk assessments were written or oral, so no answer was required if they were not. Costs before Hall J and Harrison AsJ were ordered to be costs in the cause because both parties had compromised their positions after exchange of liability witness statements.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Common Law Negligence Proceeding Concerning Physiotherapy Treatment / Defendant's Notice of Motion Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 49.19 to Set Aside Registrar Bradford's Judgment Concerning Interrogatories
Outcome
The defendant's notice of motion filed 1 August 2016 was dismissed, and costs of the hearings before Hall J on 31 October 2016 and Harrison AsJ on 17 February 2017 were ordered to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['interrogatories' 'duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'physiotherapy Treatment' "review of Registrar's Decision" 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'negligence'] ['interrogatories' 'duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'physiotherapy Treatment' "review of Registrar's Decision" 'costs']

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

Common Law Negligence Proceeding Concerning Physiotherapy Treatment / Defendant's Notice of Motion Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 49.19 to Set Aside Registrar Bradford's Judgment Concerning Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant's answers to interrogatories 4 and 6 about investigations for vertebra-basilar insufficiency and vertebral artery compromise were sufficient." "Whether the defendant's answers to interrogatories 5 and 7 about warnings for vertebra-basilar insufficiency and vertebral artery compromise were sufficient." 'Whether the defendant was required to answer interrogatories 12(d)(i) and (ii), 16(f)(i) and (ii), and 20(f)(i) and (ii) concerning written or oral risk assessments at consultations on 2, 5 and 10 September 2013.' 'What costs order should be made for the hearings before Hall J and Harrison AsJ.']

Ratio Decidendi

The disputed interrogatories did not require further answers: interrogatories 4 and 6 had been answered because 'investigation' did not include physical examination; interrogatories 5 and 7 had been properly answered notwithstanding possible expert dispute about the adequacy of the warning; and interrogatories 12(d)(i) and (ii), 16(f)(i) and (ii), and 20(f)(i) and (ii) called for answers only if the relevant risk assessments were written or oral, so no answer was required if they were not. Costs before Hall J and Harrison AsJ were ordered to be costs in the cause because both parties had compromised their positions after exchange of liability witness statements.

Court Disposition

The defendant's notice of motion filed 1 August 2016 was dismissed, and costs of the hearings before Hall J on 31 October 2016 and Harrison AsJ on 17 February 2017 were ordered to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ["The defendant's notice of motion filed 1 August 2016 is dismissed." 'Costs of the hearings before Hall J on 31 October 2016 and Harrison AsJ on 17 February 2017 are costs in the cause.']