Hamlyn v Stanton (No. 2) [2020] NSWDC 633

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hamlyn v Stanton (No. 2) [2020] NSWDC 633 Hearing dates: 12-13 October 2020 Date of orders: 13 October 2020 Decision date: 13 October 2020 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Abadee DCJ Decision: See paragraphs 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19-23 Catchwords: EVIDENCE – expert evidence – whether opinions outside expert's field(s) of expertise – whether opinions wholly or substantially based on "specialised knowledge" Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Mr R Hamlyn (Plaintiff) Mr R Stanton (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr D Elliott for the plaintiff Ms J Sandford for the defendant

Solicitors: Gerard Malouf & Partners for the plaintiff Moray & Agnew Lawyers for the defendant File Number(s): 2019/188426 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

BACKGROUND 1. The main background circumstances to this case were noted by me in my evidentiary ruling on the admissibility of Professor Turner's report earlier today. 2. The plaintiff now tenders a report of Dr Stephen Vaughan dated 28 September 2019. The defendant objects to the tender. 3. No curriculum vitae for Dr Vaughan has been furnished. It is, however, apparent on the face of the report that Dr Vaughan is a haematologist and medical oncologist. It is also apparent on the face of the report from the post-nominals that he has received study and training as both a physician and a pathologist. 4. Dr Vaughan's report is in certain parts. The first part features commentary upon the medical history of the plaintiff's 'prostatic condition'. The second part comprises a history of other medical conditions. In the course of this part, Dr Vaughan provides something of a glossary of certain terms. The third part is the provision of his opinion in response to questions raised for his consideration in a letter of instruction of the plaintiff's solicitor dated 22 August 2018. 5. The defendant objects to all of the report. It is convenient to commence first with the third part of the report, concerning the expert opinion in response to certain questions. This is because, as I understood Counsel's submission, that the point of the objection to the opinion is also conclusive against the admissibility of other parts of the report.