X v Sydney Children's Hospitals Specialty Network & Anor (No 3) [2011] NSWSC 1332

X v Sydney Children's Hospitals Specialty Network & Anor (No 3) [2011] NSWSC 1332

The Checklist contains observations rather than opinions and qualifies as a business record under s 69 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), making it admissible.

Parties
Plaintiff: X; First Defendant: Sydney Children's Hospitals Specialty Network (Randwick and Westmead) (Incorporating The Royal Alexandra Hospital for Children); Second Defendant: Dr Brian Kearney
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Objection to Admissibility of Document
Outcome
Objection rejected; Checklist admissible
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Business Records, Opinion Evidence, Lay Opinion, Specialised Knowledge
Practice and Procedure Evidence Admissibility of Business Records Opinion Evidence Lay Opinion Specialised Knowledge

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Plaintiff

Sydney Children's Hospitals Specialty Network (Randwick and Westmead) (Incorporating The Royal Alexandra Hospital for Children)

First Defendant

Dr Brian Kearney

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Objection to Admissibility of Document

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 'Meade Movement Checklist' is admissible as a business record
  2. 2 Whether the Checklist contains observation or opinion evidence
  3. 3 Application of Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 69, 78, 79

Ratio Decidendi

The Checklist contains observations rather than opinions and qualifies as a business record under s 69 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), making it admissible.

Court Disposition

Objection rejected; Checklist admissible

Orders

  • Decline to rule that the document entitled 'Mead Movement Checklist' is inadmissible.