X v Sydney Children's Hospitals Specialty Network & Anor (No 4) [2011] NSWSC 1310

X v Sydney Children's Hospitals Specialty Network & Anor (No 4) [2011] NSWSC 1310

The identified paragraph was not ruled inadmissible because it was relevant to causation, any limitations in the learning or inference went to weight, the expert was entitled under Schedule 7 to include a qualification going beyond the precise questions asked, the paragraph was defensive evidence aimed at the Plaintiff's onus rather than a pleaded positive alternative cause, the Plaintiff was not reasonably taken by surprise, and the UCPR 23.4 genetic testing order did not preclude the Defendants from raising other possible genetic causes.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Seeking a Ruling That Part of an Expert Report Was Inadmissible
Outcome
Application refused in part; the Court declined to rule the identified paragraph inadmissible.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Report Evidence' 'ucpr 14.14 Pleadings' 'procedural Fairness and Surprise' 'expert Witness Code of Conduct' 'ucpr 23.4 Genetic Testing' 'causation']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Expert Report Evidence' 'ucpr 14.14 Pleadings' 'procedural Fairness and Surprise' 'expert Witness Code of Conduct' 'ucpr 23.4 Genetic Testing' 'causation']

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 / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Seeking a Ruling That Part of an Expert Report Was Inadmissible

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first full paragraph on page 4 of Professor Inder's First Report was inadmissible for irrelevance." "Whether the Defendants were required under UCPR 14.14(2) to plead an alternative cause of the Plaintiff's disabilities before relying on the impugned paragraph." 'Whether the impugned paragraph was inadmissible because it was not responsive to the letter of instruction to Professor Inder.' 'Whether orders for genetic testing made by Johnson J under UCPR 23.4 precluded the Defendants from raising possible genetic causes.']

Ratio Decidendi

The identified paragraph was not ruled inadmissible because it was relevant to causation, any limitations in the learning or inference went to weight, the expert was entitled under Schedule 7 to include a qualification going beyond the precise questions asked, the paragraph was defensive evidence aimed at the Plaintiff's onus rather than a pleaded positive alternative cause, the Plaintiff was not reasonably taken by surprise, and the UCPR 23.4 genetic testing order did not preclude the Defendants from raising other possible genetic causes.

Court Disposition

Application refused in part; the Court declined to rule the identified paragraph inadmissible.

Orders

  • ['Decline to rule that the first full paragraph on page 4 of the Report of Professor Inder served 08.04.10 is inadmissible.']