X v Sydney Children's Hospitals Specialty Network & Anor (No 7) [2011] NSWSC 1360

X v Sydney Children's Hospitals Specialty Network & Anor (No 7) [2011] NSWSC 1360

The Judge refused to permit Plaintiff's counsel to cross-examine Dr Manson or to raise new matters during the allocated time for 'matters arising' because these issues had not arisen from questions asked by the Defendants' counsel and it would be procedurally unfair to allow them at that stage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Evidentiary Procedure During Expert Concurrent Evidence
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['concurrent Evidence' 'cross Examination' 'procedural Fairness']
['practice and Procedure'] ['concurrent Evidence' 'cross Examination' 'procedural Fairness']

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 / Ruling on Evidentiary Procedure During Expert Concurrent Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Plaintiff's counsel should be permitted to cross-examine Dr Manson in the time allocated for matters arising from questions asked by Defendants' counsel" 'Whether Plaintiff could question experts concerning a matter that did not arise during concurrent evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

The Judge refused to permit Plaintiff's counsel to cross-examine Dr Manson or to raise new matters during the allocated time for 'matters arising' because these issues had not arisen from questions asked by the Defendants' counsel and it would be procedurally unfair to allow them at that stage.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ["Refuse to permit Plaintiff's counsel to cross-examine Dr Manson in the time allocated for matters arising from Defendants' counsels' questions" 'Refuse to permit Plaintiff to question experts concerning the transfer test or related matters that did not arise during concurrent evidence']