O'Meara v Dr Arianayagam [2006] NSWSC 797

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : O'Meara v Dr Arianayagam [2006] NSWSC 797

HEARING DATE(S) : 4 August 2006

JUDGMENT DATE : 8 August 2006

JUDGMENT OF : Latham J at 1

DECISION : That the defendant answer interrogatories 7, 8, 10 to 22 inclusive, the first part of interrogatory 23, 25 to 31 inclusive, 35 to 44 inclusive, 46 to 49 inclusive; Costs of the motion are to be costs in the cause; The above orders do not prevent the defendant from taking any further objection to individual interrogatories under Rule 22.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.

CATCHWORDS : Interrogatories - whether plaintiff has demonstrated "special reasons" for order under Rule 22.1 - loss of photographs and paucity of clinical notes

CASES CITED : Bassindale v Western Sydney Area Health Service [2006] NSWSC 703

PARTIES : Dianne Elizabeth O'Meara - Plaintiff Dr Chandran Arianayagam - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20302/04

COUNSEL : Robert Taylor - Plaintiff Jason Downing - Defendant

SOLICITORS : McCabe Partners - Plaintiff P Tsaousidis - Plaintiff

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE LIST

LATHAM J

8 AUGUST 2006

20302/04 DIANNE ELIZABETH O'MEARA v DR CHANDRAN ARIANAYAGAM

JUDGMENT 1 The plaintiff seeks an order under Rule 22.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 that the defendant answer 49 interrogatories which were served on the defendant on 22 December 2005. The Notice of Motion filed on 12 July 2006 is supported by Affidavits of Natalie McCabe dated 11 July and 26 July 2006. The Defendant resists the application for the order and relies upon an Affidavit of Michael Andre Swan of 4 August 2006. 2 The issue for determination is whether the plaintiff has discharged the onus of satisfying the Court that special reasons exist justifying the making of the order. Some reference to the circumstances giving rise to the proceedings is necessary in order to place the interrogatories in context and assess the plaintiff's claim that the preparation and conduct of her case is compromised without the answers sought, in that they are solely within the knowledge of the defendant and unavailable from any other source.