Wright v Optus Administration & Anor (No 6) [2013] NSWSC 1719

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wright v Optus Administration & Anor (No 6) [2013] NSWSC 1719 Hearing dates: 15 November 2013 Decision date: 15 November 2013 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Campbell J Decision: I admit the reports of John Albert Roberts as exhibits 1D-5(1) and 1D-6 Catchwords: EVIDENCE - admissibility Cases Cited: Paric v John Holland Constructions Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 58; 62 ALR 85 Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Glen Wright (plaintiff) Optus Administration Pty Ltd (first defendant) IPA Personnel Pty Limited (second defendant) Representation: Counsel: RA Cavanagh SC with CJ Callaway (plaintiff) JB Simpkins SC with DF Villa (first defendant) W Reynolds (second defendant) Solicitors: Firths (plaintiff) Hunt & Hunt (first defendant) Sparke Helmore Lawyers (second defendant) File Number(s): 2009/297493

Ex Tempore Judgment Relating to admissibility of Dr Roberts Reports 1There are two things; I was initially attracted to the Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642 objection, but on reflection even if I, at this stage, do not have the record of interview, or the statement of Mr George senior, I think there is probably enough in the evidence I have already received from the other witnesses to at least overcome the type of problem that counsel identified and to bring this case into the category of Paric v John Holland Constructions Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 58; 62 ALR 85, rather than Ramsay v Watson. 2I think there is a question about whether a psychiatrist can give evidence about what a layperson ought to perceive about a situation, but I am not so persuaded of that to think that the evidence of the psychiatrist is irrelevant. 3There is a question, as I have said in the course of argument, about the standard of care and whether an expert psychiatrist's special knowledge is capable of informing the answer to the question about what a reasonable person in the position of the first defendant ought to have known for the purpose of determining the foreseeability question in the case. 4It seems to me that one would not expect that a company like the first defendant would necessarily have, on hand, psychiatrists to advise it in the type of situation that arose on 15 March 2011. 5On the other hand, I think I can infer that psychiatrists do have special knowledge about the workings of the human mind and to that extent what Dr Roberts says is capable of having some relevance to the liability question in the case. 6I am not sure that I fully accept Mr Simpkins' argument that if a psychiatrist would not have thought anything of the behaviour of the assailant, why should Optus. But that is something that can be developed more fully when the evidence is in, and in due course. 7I will admit the reports of John Albert Roberts as exhibits 1D-5(1) and 1D-6.