Hill v Sydney Night Patrol & Inquiry Co Pty Ltd t/as SNP Security [2021] NSWSC 1425

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hill v Sydney Night Patrol & Inquiry Co Pty Ltd t/as SNP Security [2021] NSWSC 1425 Hearing dates: 04 November 2021 Date of orders: 04 November 2021 Decision date: 04 November 2021 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Wright J Decision: (1) The plaintiff is to submit to a medical examination by Dr Wendy Roberts, clinical psychologist, pursuant to r 23.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, subject to the following conditions: (a) Dr W Roberts is not to take orally a history from the plaintiff or to ask her questions as to the alleged incidents at the 2016 New Year's Eve function; (b) For the avoidance of doubt, it is no part of the examination for Dr W Roberts to test the veracity and accuracy of the plaintiff's account of those incidents and it is no part of the examination to obtain evidence that might go to the plaintiff's veracity generally; (c) The plaintiff is permitted to have a support person attend the interview aspect of the examination; (d) Pursuant to r 23.5 the plaintiff is permitted to have a psychologist qualified to administer psychometric testing present during such testing as the plaintiff's support person as well as being present, if the plaintiff requires, during the interview; and (e) The examination is to be conducted in two parts, namely the interview and the psychometric testing, on different dates, as agreed between the parties, so that in total the examination's duration does not exceed 6 hours. (2) The medical examination is to take place at times and on dates agreed between the parties or, in default of agreement, such times and dates as are determined by the Court. (3) The costs of, and incidental to, the notice of motion filed on 6 August 2021 are to be costs in the cause. (4) The parties have liberty to apply on 2 days' notice in respect of order (2). Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — medical examinations — claim for damages for psychiatric injury due to alleged assaults — application seeking that plaintiff be required to submit to examination by a psychologist — Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 23.4 and 23.5 — evidence sufficient to establish psychometric testing as part of the examination capable of producing evidence relevant to matters in issue — limitation on examination so as not to include challenging the veracity of the plaintiff in relation to alleged assaults or generally — presence of psychologist under r 23.5 as support person during psychometric testing — limitation on duration of examination — splitting of examination so that interview and psychometric testing on different days but not exceeding six hours in total — order for examination made subject to conditions Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 32 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56-58, 61 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 23.1-23.5 Cases Cited: JKZ v The Scots College [2018] NSWSC 1526 Plaintiff [name withheld] v Stapleton [2017] NSWSC 914 Rowlands v State of New South Wales (2009) 74 NSWLR 715; [2009] NSWCA 136 Texts Cited: Australian Psychological Society Code of Ethics Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Natasha Hill (Plaintiff) Sydney Night Patrol & Inquiry Co Pty Ltd t/as SNP Security (First Defendant) 4SP Group Pty Ltd t/as 4Site Protection Services (Third Defendant) Mezin Jejeih (Fourth Defendant) Representation: Counsel: M McAuley (Plaintiff) R Gambi (Defendant)