Alsuleiman by her tutor Haimour v George (No 2) [2017] NSWDC 446

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Alsuleiman by her tutor Haimour v George (No 2) [2017] NSWDC 446 Hearing dates: 9 November 2017 Date of orders: 09 November 2017 Decision date: 09 November 2017 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: P Taylor SC DCJ Decision: Dr Apler's report admitted into evidence. Catchwords: EVIDENCE – expert – expert's report – service of report - 28 days before the date of the hearing – "date of the hearing" - exceptional circumstances Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 56 Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, 59A Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 31.18, 31.28 Cases Cited: El-Mohamad v Celenk [2017] NSWCA 242 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Aisha Alsuleiman by her tutor Yasmin Haimour (plaintiff) Brett George (defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr N Ghabar (plaintiff) Mr J Turnbull SC (defendant)

Solicitors: NSW Compensation Lawyers (plaintiff) Carroll & O'Dea (defendant) File Number(s): 2017/101595 Publication restriction: None

Judgment 1. Aisha Alsuleiman, a four-year-old girl, by her mother as tutor seeks damages for a psychiatric disorder arising from a car accident when she was a little over one year old. She relies upon a psychiatrist report from Dr Leonard Lee, who diagnosed separation anxiety disorder. 2. The defendant seeks to tender a MAS report by Dr Alex Apler. The report was served on 11 October 2017, the first day of the hearing, and an argument about admissibility then commenced. The proceedings were adjourned until today. No issue is taken about the admissibility of MAS reports generally. [1] 3. The defendant concedes that the MAS report is an expert's report as defined in r 31.18 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 and is within the terms of r 31.28. Accordingly, if the report is not served by not later than 28 days before the date of the hearing at which the report is to be used, [2] it is only admissible by leave since consent is not given. [3] And leave is not to be given unless, relevantly, the Court is satisfied of exceptional circumstances. [4]