NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION: Sydney South West Area Health Service v Stamoulis [2009] NSWCA 153
HEARING DATE(S): Thursday 4 June 2009, Wednesday 24 June 2009
JUDGMENT DATE: 24 July 2009
JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Giles JA at 19; Ipp JA at 52
(a) The appeal is upheld. (b) The orders made by Hoeben J are set aside. (c) The matter is remitted to the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court for a re-trial on the issue of negligence. DECISION: (d) The respondent pay the appellant's costs of appeal. (e) The respondent be entitled to a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 if otherwise entitled. (f) The costs of the trial before Hoeben J be costs in the cause. (g) The cross-appeal is dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS: EVIDENCE - admissibility and relevancy - opinion evidence - expert evidence - whether trial judge erred in preferring the opinion of one expert to another where the former had greater expertise - whether trial judge impermissibly took into account own opinions on issues requiring expert testimony - effect of rules of court on admissibility of expert evidence and expert opinion evidence - whether evidence of expert materially interested in the proceedings is admissible. - CAUSATION - material increase in the risk - whether risk created by the tortfeasor came home - use of epidemiological and statistical evidence.
Civil Liability Act 2002 Civil Procedure Act 2005 LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995 Supreme Court Rules 1970 Suitors' Fund Act 1951 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate