Mazzoni v Sorrento Family Practice Pty Ltd

The case of Mazzoni v Sorrento Family Practice Pty Ltd involves a dispute between the plaintiff, Mazzoni, and the defendants, Sorrento Family Practice Pty Ltd. The plaintiff is seeking both an account of profits and damages, which are mutually exclusive remedies, from the defendants for infringement of purported rights. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to adduce expert evidence at the trial of the action. The plaintiff had filed an entry for trial on 17 July 2018, as mandated by a notice of default. However, the plaintiff sought to adduce expert evidence, which was not permitted under the Rules as they then stood. The court had to determine whether it had the power to extend the time and make the interlocutory order under the relevant Rules of the Supreme Court and the District Court Rules.

The court found that it had the power to extend the time and make the interlocutory order. The court relied on Order 3 rule 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, which provides that a court may, on such terms as is just, extend or abridge the period within which a person is required or authorised to do any act in any proceedings. The court also referred to rule 32(2)(c) of the District Court Rules, which provides that at the hearing of a summons for directions, or any other application, an order under rule 32(2) may be made. The court considered that while case management considerations are important, they should not be given precedence over the proper opportunity for the parties to ensure that a court determines the facts on the evidence that is reasonably put to the court by the parties.

The court granted leave to the plaintiff to adduce expert evidence at the trial of the action. The court found that the expert evidence would be needed to enable the plaintiff to prove her loss, which was necessary to establish her case. The court considered that the purpose of civil proceedings is to determine the respective rights of litigants, and that considerations of efficiency should not detract from this. The court also noted that the parties were still some way off listing the matter for trial, and that there was still disputation in relation to discovery and particulars of damage. The expert evidence, as submitted by the plaintiff's counsel, would inform the content of the particulars of damage.

The court did not make any other orders in relation to the case. The parties were directed to continue with the case management process, including resolving the outstanding issues in relation to discovery and particulars of damage. The matter was listed for further directions.