El-Mouelhy v Reid [2017] NSWSC 623

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: El-Mouelhy v Reid [2017] NSWSC 623 Hearing dates: 18 May 2017 Date of orders: 19 May 2017 Decision date: 19 May 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Adamson J Decision: (1) Order the defendant, pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 22.1, to answer interrogatories numbered 42, 43, and 44 in the draft annexed to the notice of motion filed on 3 February 2017 and to verify such answers in an affidavit.

(2) Order that the costs of the motion be costs in the cause. Catchwords: INTERROGATORIES – requirement that they be necessary – importance of consideration of other forensic procedures available to the applicant – interrogatories must be drafted with precision to achieve a forensic purpose Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 191 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 22.1 Cases Cited: Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Nadia El-Mouelhy (Plaintiff) Richard Reid (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: E Romaniuk SC/J Doyon (Plaintiff) T Hackett (Defendant)

Solicitors: Martin Street Lawyers (Plaintiff) Browns Legal & Consulting (Defendant) File Number(s): 2013/270358 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Introduction 1. By notice of motion filed on 3 February 2017 Nadia El-Mouelhy, the plaintiff, sought an order for verified interrogatories against Dr Richard Reid, the defendant. 2. The proceedings were commenced in the District Court on 6 September 2013. An amended statement of claim was filed in the District Court on 2 October 2015, to which a defence was filed on 4 December 2015. The proceedings were subsequently transferred to this Court. 3. For present purposes, it is sufficient to summarise the plaintiff's claim in broad terms. The plaintiff claims damages for negligence against the defendant arising from two medical procedures which he performed on her vagina on 14 September 2010 and 19 July 2011 respectively. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant was negligent in failing to obtain relevant consent for the procedures; performing the procedures when conservative management was warranted; and in the way in which he performed the procedures.