Harris v Bellemore

The appeal in *Harris v Bellemore* concerned a medical negligence claim brought by the appellant against the respondent doctor. The appellant had undergone leg lengthening treatment and alleged negligence in the course of that treatment. The primary judge had made findings that the appellant's case did not include a claim relating to a particular deformity, and that the appellant's psychiatric condition was not caused by the respondent's negligence. The appellant also sought leave to tender an additional expert's report, which had not been served within the time required by UCPR 31.28.

The issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in finding that the appellant's case did not encompass a claim concerning a specific deformity, whether the primary judge erred in refusing leave to tender the additional expert's report on the basis of no exceptional circumstances, and whether the primary judge erred in finding that the appellant's psychiatric condition was not caused by the respondent's alleged negligence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. It found that the primary judge had erred in refusing leave to tender the additional expert's report, as the rule regarding service times was not intended to prevent the admission of relevant evidence where the opposing party would not be unduly prejudiced. The Court also found that the primary judge had erred in his findings regarding the appellant's deformity and its causation, and the link between the respondent's treatment and the appellant's psychiatric condition.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside certain orders made at first instance and remitted the proceedings to the primary judge. The primary judge was directed to determine specific questions regarding the appellant's deformity, its potential correction, its significance, its causation by the respondent's treatment (other than a specific surgical procedure), and the extent of further damages, if any, to be awarded. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.