[ad_1]
Hogan v Jaffe [2022] NSWSC 1662 (on Caselaw).
By notice of motion, the plaintiff sought an order pursuant to r 31.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), permitting him to serve an expert report from a second endocrinologist as well as from a neurosurgeon. The defendant later consented to an order in relation to the neurosurgeon.
The two defendants had initially indicated reliance on one endocrinologist, but later the second defendant served a report from an additional endocrinologist.
The plaintiff argued that a second endocrinology report ought to be allowed for various reasons, including the need to properly address the section 5O issue. In that regard the court held at [39]:
Although these are two separate hearings being heard together by way of convenience, being one case against the first defendant and a separate case against the second defendant, it still seems to me that there is some significance to the fact that, in this particular case, there will be two experts for the defence and only one for the plaintiff. Having regard to those three arguments, it does seem to me that the plaintiff has discharged its onus of persuading me that there is a basis to seek a second expert endocrinologist in this case.
The question of whether the plaintiff is ultimately permitted to rely upon two reports will be a matter for the trial judge ([48]).
[BillMaddensWordpress #2069]
[ad_2]
Source link
