Harris v Bellemore [2009] NSWSC 1497

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Harris v Bellemore [2009] NSWSC 1497

HEARING DATE(S) : 1 May 2009

JUDGMENT DATE : 5 May 2009

JUDGMENT OF : McCallum J

(1) I note that the questions for the psychiatric experts in the proceedings are those identified in attachment "B" to the directions of the Court made 27 April 2009. (2) Pursuant to rule 31.20(2)(e) of the UCPR, I direct that the number of expert witnesses who may be called by each party to give evidence on those questions be limited to two. DECISION : (3) Pursuant to rule 31.28(3) of the UCPR, I grant leave to the plaintiff to rely on the reports of Mr Kossmann dated 16 April 2009, 17 April 2009 and 28 April 2009. (4) In respect of the plaintiff's draft questions for expert witnesses on liability dated 29 April 2009 (MFI 49) I reject questions 2 to 8, 10 to 12, 21, 24, 29, 40, 40A and 48 to 66. (5) I allow questions 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, A40 in MFI 49 including the additional question A40(c) and 43 to 44 (with the amendment referred to at [53] of these reasons and marked on MFI 49). (6) I will hear the parties as to the inclusion of questions 67 to 69 in MFI 49 in light of my ruling on Mr Kossmann's reports.

CATCHWORDS : EXPERT EVIDENCE - s 108C Evidence Act - expert evidence going only to credibility of defendant doctor.

LEGISLATION CITED : Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Evidence Act 1995

CATEGORY : Procedural and other rulings

CASES CITED : Rogers v Whittaker (1992) 175 CLR 490

TEXTS CITED : Odgers, Uniform Evidence Law (8th ed)

PARTIES : Paul Harris (Plaintiff) Dr Michael Bellemore (Defendant)