Lange v Drioli - [2019] SADC 74

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
LANGE & ORS v DRIOLI & ANOR
[2019] SADC 74
Reasons for Decision of Her Honour Judge Schammer
18 June 2019
PROCEDURE - COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY - JUDGES - POWER TO CONTROL PROCEEDINGS
PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF EVIDENCE - EXPERT REPORTS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE - OTHER MATTERS
Application made by the plaintiffs seeking orders for a joint conference of the obstetric experts and the provision of a joint report pursuant to Rule 213 – application opposed - whether the process will facilitate and/or encourage a resolution of the matter, result in efficiencies being achieved in the conduct of the trial and/or minimise the cost of the litigation.
Held: Application dismissed.
District Court Civil Rules 2006 r 213, referred to.
Boardman v South Eastern Sydney Area Health Service & Ors [2001] NSWSC 930; Spasovic & Anor v Sydney Adventist Hospital & Anor [2002] NSWSC 164; Booth v Di Francesco [2002] NSWSC 154; Willett v United Concrete Pty Ltd & Anor [2009] NSWSC 957, considered.

LANGE & ORS v DRIOLI & ANOR
[2019] SADC 74
The Application

By application dated 19 March 2019 (FDN 60) the plaintiffs seek the following orders pursuant to Rule 213 of the District Court Civil Rules 2006 (DCR 213):
1       That the expert obstetric witnesses, Professor Mike O’Connor and Professor Con Michael confer by 28 June 2019.
2       That for the purposes of the conference the experts refer to:
(a)The Joint Statement of Assumptions;
(b)The Questions and Materials for Joint Report of Obstetric Experts, including the additional assumptions described in section 3.
3       That by 30 August 2019 the experts produce for use by the court a report identifying:
(a)The matters and issues on which they are in agreement; and
(b)The matters and issues on which they differ.
4       That for the purposes of convening the conference, the conduct of the conference, the structure of the report and the role of legal representatives, the Supervised Case List Guidelines for Joint Conferences of Expert Witnesses of the Supreme Court of Queensland be adopted (the Queensland Guidelines).
5       That the cost of the conference and the report be costs in the cause.
6       Such further or other order as the court deems fit.
The application is supported by the affidavit of Gary Noel Allison sworn on 18 March 2019. In addition, the plaintiffs rely upon an Outline of Argument dated 1 May 2019 and a Bundle of Documents entitled ‘Index to Documents relating to plaintiff’s application for joint report of obstetric experts’.
The first defendant takes no position with respect to the application.
The application is opposed by the second defendant. The second defendant relies upon an Outline of Argument dated 7 May 2019 and a List of Authorities. The second defendant also provided copies of and referred to the reports of Professor Jonathan Anthony Hyett, Head of High Risk Obstetrics at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (Prof Hyett),…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lange v Drioli and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] SADC 74
Decision Date: 18 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lange v Drioli, the plaintiffs sought a joint conference of the obstetric experts and a joint report under Rule 213 of the relevant procedural rules. The application was opposed by the defendants. The dispute was primarily concerned with the management of expert evidence and the facilitation of a resolution in the litigation process.

The court was required to determine whether the proposed process of a joint conference and the provision of a joint report would facilitate a resolution of the matter, achieve efficiencies in the conduct of the trial, or minimise the cost of litigation. The court examined the potential benefits and drawbacks of such an approach, considering the principles of procedural fairness and the need to manage expert evidence effectively.

The court concluded that the proposed process could indeed facilitate a resolution, achieve efficiencies, and minimise costs. The joint conference and joint report were seen as mechanisms to streamline the expert evidence process, potentially reducing the need for extensive cross-examination and allowing for a more focused examination of the issues. The court recognised that such measures could contribute to a more effective and economical resolution of the case.

Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' application for a joint conference of the obstetric experts and the provision of a joint report. This decision was aimed at promoting a more efficient and cost-effective resolution of the matter.

Orders