McAteer v Stoodley [2018] NSWSC 710

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: McAteer v Stoodley [2018] NSWSC 710 Hearing dates: 17 May 2018 Decision date: 17 May 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Adamson J Decision: See paragraph [19]. Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – leave to rely on report of second expert with same specialty to that of expert whose report already served – leave granted because of plaintiff's acquiescence in the defendant's solicitor's conduct

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to amend defence to add limitation defence – no explanation for delay – leave granted as time sufficient for evidence to be prepared for trial Legislation Cited: Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) ss 50C, 50D Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Susan McAteer (Plaintiff) Marcus Stoodley (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: R Royle (Plaintiff) S Kalfas SC (Defendant)

Solicitors: Stacks Goudcamp (Plaintiff) HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Defendant) File Number(s): 2016/236135

Judgment – EX TEMPORE

Introduction 1. By statement of claim filed on 5 August 2016, Susan McAteer (the plaintiff) brings a claim for negligence against Professor Marcus Stoodley (the defendant), a neurosurgeon, arising from a series of surgical procedures he performed on her. The matter is listed for trial to commence on 18 June 2018.

Applications 1. There are two motions for determination before me today. The first is the plaintiff's notice of motion which, following amendment, sought an order that the defendant not be permitted to rely on the expert report of Dr Ralph Mobbs, neurosurgeon, at the hearing of the matter; or, in the alternative, that the defendant be required to choose whether to rely on the report of Dr Andrew Kam or the report of Dr Mobbs. The second motion is the defendant's application for leave to amend its defence to add a limitation defence pursuant to s 50C of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW).