George v Biggs (No 2)

Case [2015] NSWDC 43


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: George v Biggs & Anor (No 2) [2015] NSWDC 43
Hearing dates:2 April 2015
Date of orders: 17 April 2015
Decision date: 17 April 2015
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Levy SC DCJ
Decision:

1.  The interim stay previously ordered to expire at 4.00pm on 2 April 2015 is extended to 4.00pm on Monday 25 May 2015 pending any further order of the Court of Appeal in the event that a notice of appeal is filed;

2.  In the event that no notice of appeal is filed before 25 May 2015, the stay the subject of Order 1 will discharge;

3.  No later than 28 days after today’s date, the defendants are to pay the witness expenses of Professor Havas in the assessed sum of $31,350 including GST to compensate him for the losses he has incurred in complying with the subpoena served on him on 29 August 2014;

4.  The costs of the plaintiff’s notice of motion filed on 1 April 2015, by which Order (3) above was sought, are to be paid by the defendants on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;

5.  Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further or other orders are required.
Catchwords: PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – stay pending appeal; COSTS – expert witness expenses – defendants disputed expenses claimed by plaintiff’s expert in complying with subpoena issued by defendants requiring the expert to attend the trial for cross-examination – application granted for the expenses of an expert witness to be paid by the defendants
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 3, s 16, s 56, s 58(1), s 62, s 97, s 98
Legal Profession Act 2004, s 364
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 31.31, r 33.11
Cases Cited: Alexander v Cambridge Credits Corporation Limited 2 [1985] 2 NSWLR 685
Danieletto v Khera (1995) 35 NSWLR 684
Franklins Pty Ltd v Endeavour Holdings Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1204
Foyster v Foyster Holdings [2003] NSWSC 881
George v Biggs & Anor [2015] NSWDC 11
J Aron Corporation v Newmont Yandal Operations [2004] NSWSC 996
Re Dovico; Ex Parte Mayne Wetherall [2012] NSWSC 823
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Sandra George (Plaintiff)
Nigel Biggs (First defendant)
St Vincent's Hospital Sydney Limited (Second defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr J Anderson (Plaintiff)
Ms L Young (Defendants)

Solicitors:
Martin Bell & Co (Plaintiff)
TressCox Lawyers (Defendants)
File Number(s):2012/372183
Publication restriction:None

Judgment

Table of Contents

Background

[1] – [2]

Application for extension of interim stay

[3] – [7]

Application for payment of witness expenses

[8] – [18]

Factual evidence adduced on the motion

[19] – [68]

Submissions of the parties

[69] – [74]

Relevant legislation and authorities

[75] – [81]

Consideration

[82] – [117]

Disposition

[118]

Costs

[119]

Orders

[120]

Background

  1. On 24 February 2015, the principal judgment was delivered in these proceedings involving professional negligence, resulting in the entry of judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants in the sum of $330,999.85, with the plaintiff’s costs…

Continue reading George v Biggs (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
George v Biggs (No 2) [2015] NSWDC 43
Case
[2015] NSWDC 43
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of George v Biggs (No 2) involved the plaintiff, George, suing the defendants, Biggs, with the dispute centering around the costs associated with a subpoenaed expert witness. The case was heard in a lower court, with the matter potentially proceeding to the Court of Appeal. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendants were obligated to pay the expenses incurred by the plaintiff's expert witness in complying with a subpoena. The defendants contested the validity and reasonableness of the claimed expenses, arguing that they should not be liable for the full amount.

The court considered the procedural fairness in the handling of the subpoena and the necessity for the expert witness to attend the trial for cross-examination. It was noted that the defendants had issued the subpoena and subsequently disputed the expenses claimed by the plaintiff's expert. The court determined that the defendants were responsible for the expert's expenses, as they had initiated the need for the expert's attendance. The reasonableness of the claimed expenses was upheld, leading to the decision that the defendants must compensate the expert for the losses incurred in complying with the subpoena.

In its reasoning, the court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the implications of issuing a subpoena. The court found that the defendants' dispute over the expenses was unfounded, as they were the party that had required the expert's presence. Consequently, the court ordered the defendants to pay the assessed sum of $31,350, including GST, to the plaintiff's expert within 28 days. Additionally, the court granted an extension to an existing stay pending the outcome of any potential appeal, ensuring that the procedural integrity was maintained throughout the process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The interim stay previously ordered to expire at 4.00pm on 2 April 2015 is extended to 4.00pm on Monday 25 May 2015 pending any further order of the Court of Appeal in the event that a notice of appeal is filed;

2. In the event that no notice of appeal is filed before 25 May 2015, the stay the subject of Order 1 will discharge;

3. No later than 28 days after today’s date, the defendants are to pay the witness expenses of Professor Havas in the assessed sum of $31,350 including GST to compensate him for the losses he has incurred in complying with the subpoena served on him on 29 August 2014;

4. The costs of the plaintiff’s notice of motion filed on 1 April 2015, by which Order (3) above was sought, are to be paid by the defendants on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;

5. Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further or other orders are required.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.