Attorney General in and for the State of NSW v Bar-Mordecai
[2013] NSWSC 153
•27 February 2013
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Attorney General in and for the State of NSW v Bar-Mordecai [2013] NSWSC 153 Hearing dates: 27 February 2013 Decision date: 27 February 2013 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt J Decision: The re-opening application is refused.
Catchwords: PROCEDURE - application to re-open - application refused Category: Principal judgment Parties: Attorney General in and for the State of NSW (Plaintiff)
Michael Jacob Bar-Mordecai (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
M Lynch (Dr XY)
Solicitors:
IV Knight (Plaintiff)
Mr Bar-Mordecai (unrepresented) (Defendant)
Avant Legal Pty Ltd (Dr XY)
File Number(s): 2004/180898 Publication restriction: None
extempore Judgment
HER HONOUR: The matter is listed today for judgment. Yesterday there was provided by hand a letter addressed to me, written by Mr Bar-Mordecai, in which he advised various things in relation to proceedings which occurred before the Medical Tribunal in 2009, when it refused an application which he had made for review of an earlier decision of the Tribunal made in 2000 when his registration as a doctor was removed.
The letter also refers to judicial officers Mr Bar-Mordecai has diagnosed to be suffering from judicial psychopathy and/or antisocial personality disorder as well as to a judgment I had given in 2009 in proceedings which Mr Bar-Mordecai then brought in respect of the Tribunal's decision. The letter says that in Mr Bar-Mordecai's view:
"It is in the public's interest and for members of the litigant public imperative for medical experts in the community to identify a judicial psychopath and instigate a complaint for the removal of that person from active duties on the bench or in the public service for the protection of the litigant public."
The letter also records, as I understand it, that since judgment was reserved in this case a medical expert, Dr Teoh, from whom Mr Bar-Mordecai obtained a report which he relied on in support of his application in these proceedings, had refused to amend the report which was tendered, Mr Bar-Mordecai says to make it compliant with the requirements of the Supreme Court with regards to his medical and negligence application.
Dr Teoh, like other psychiatrists, insisted on being paid report fees prior to writing a report. Mr Bar-Mordecai's view is that this has made a mockery of the Supreme Court's requirements in medical negligence cases.
He suggests that perhaps an order from the Court to make Dr Teoh comply with the Court's requirements when writing reports would be appropriate. Mr Bar-Mordecai also records that he has contacted more than 300 psychiatrists in Australia and overseas, but all refused to write any report with any reference to the "but for" principle.
The letter then makes an application that I, in my capacity as 'adjudicator' of the Supreme Court, re-list this matter and at a directions hearing appoint, by way of formal order, a practising psychiatrist in the Sydney area to espouse the "but for" principle in a written report to be filed in these proceedings.
That application is opposed by the other parties and is one which, in my view, leaving to one side the procedural difficulties with the approach which has been adopted by Mr Bar-Mordecai, to making what is essentially a re-opening application, is one which cannot be acceded to.
It is quite apparent that the Court has no power to require any expert to express a particular opinion. What opinions an expert has and expresses in any report provided to a litigant is a matter for the expert to determine. A refusal by an expert to express a view in relation to matters relevant to a determination of the "but for" test to which Mr Bar-Mordecai has referred in his letter, is not a basis upon which the application which he has made could be determined favourably towards him.
For those reasons the re-opening application is refused and I now propose to deliver the reserved judgment.
**********
Amendments
19 April 2013 - Error on coverpageParty name - Avant Legal removed
Decision last updated: 04 March 2013
2
0
0