Iacovone v Raftos

In the case of Iacovone v Raftos, the plaintiff sought to vacate a trial date that had been set to determine the quantum of damages. The defendant had admitted liability, but disputed the amount of care required by the plaintiff. The parties were unable to agree on the amount of care required, and the court was asked to decide whether the trial should proceed as scheduled. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defendant's failure to qualify an expert in time for the trial was sufficient grounds for the plaintiff to vacate the trial date, and whether the changed factual basis for the plaintiff's expert opinion of a rehabilitation physician warranted a postponement of the trial. The court considered whether the defendant's failure to qualify the expert in time was an oversight or a deliberate tactic to delay the proceedings, and whether the changed factual basis for the expert opinion was significant enough to warrant a postponement of the trial.

The court held that the defendant's failure to qualify the expert in time was not sufficient grounds for the plaintiff to vacate the trial date. The court found that the defendant had made a genuine attempt to qualify the expert, but was unable to do so in time due to the changed factual basis for the plaintiff's expert opinion. The court also found that the changed factual basis for the expert opinion was not significant enough to warrant a postponement of the trial. The court held that the trial should proceed as scheduled, and dismissed the plaintiff's application to vacate the trial date.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application to vacate the trial date, and ordered that the trial proceed as scheduled. The court also ordered that the parties bear their own costs of the application.