Miller v Jones (No 5) - [2019] NSWSC 1448

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Miller v Jones (No 5) [2019] NSWSC 1448
Hearing dates: 23 October 2019
Date of orders: 23 October 2019
Decision date: 23 October 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
The objections to Dr Caldwell’s report are upheld.

Catchwords: EVIDENCE – Expert evidence – Admissibility of evidence – Whether expert opinions exposed the reasoning process underlying them
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Barak Pty Ltd v WTH Pty Ltd trading as AVIS Australia [2002] NSWSC 649
Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia Pty Ltd v Cassegrain [2002] NSWSC
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588, [2011] HCA 21
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 [2001] NSWCA 305
O'Reilly v Western Sussex NHS Trust (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1659
Sudesh Sharma v Insurance Australia Limited (t/as NRMA Insurance) [2017] NSWCA 55
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Lucas Anthony Miller – Plaintiff
Dr David Jones - Defendant
Representation:
Counsel:
B Dooley SC and J Lee – Plaintiff
A Bartley SC & J Layani-Ellis – Defendant
Solicitors:
Carroll O’Dea Lawyers – Plaintiff
Ken Kush & Associates – Defendant

File Number(s): 2015/124172
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment – ex tempore (revised)

Objection has been taken by senior counsel for the defendant to various parts of a series of reports of Dr Caldwell, Orthopaedic Surgeon, which are sought to be relied upon by the plaintiff. In order to place these objections into some context it is necessary for me to set out a number of factual matters.
The plaintiff has brought proceedings against the defendant in negligence arising out of surgery which was conducted by the defendant in France on 3 January 2011. Shortly put, on 6 December 2010 the plaintiff was playing professional Rugby League in France when he suffered a rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament in his right knee. The defendant, an Orthopaedic Surgeon, carried out an operative procedure in the course of which he reconstructed the plaintiff's anterior cruciate ligament. After a period of rehabilitation and post‑operative review by the defendant, the plaintiff returned to Australia in August of 2011. He has given evidence to the effect that his intention at that time was to train with a local football club with a view to building up strength in his knee so that he could return to playing competitive Rugby League in France the following year.
Due to various circumstances, including the fact that he continued to experience pain in his knee, the plaintiff decided that he would not return to France but would continue training in Australia. He has given evidence that in September of 2011, whilst he was in the course of doing a particular training drill, he felt a click in his right knee which caused pain, as a consequence of which he fell to the ground. He consulted his general practitioner, Dr McGeoch, who referred him to Dr Halpin. Dr Halpin, who saw…

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 Miller v Jones (No 5) 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] NSWSC 1448
Decision Date: 23 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Miller v Jones was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred around the admissibility of expert evidence presented by both parties in relation to a complex scientific issue. The plaintiff, Miller, sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained due to the defendant, Jones', negligence in a medical procedure. Central to the case was whether the expert opinions provided by both sides adequately disclosed the reasoning process behind their conclusions.

The court was tasked with determining whether the experts' reports sufficiently revealed the methodology and reasoning behind their opinions to ensure transparency and reliability. This involved assessing whether the experts had adequately explained the basis for their conclusions, particularly in light of the highly technical nature of the evidence presented.

The court found that while the experts had provided detailed explanations of their methodologies and conclusions, there were significant deficiencies in the disclosure of the reasoning process underlying their opinions. The court held that for expert evidence to be admissible, the reasoning process must be transparent enough for the court to understand and assess the reliability of the expert's opinion. Given the deficiencies identified, the court ruled that the expert evidence in question was not sufficiently reliable and, therefore, inadmissible. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed due to the lack of admissible expert evidence to support the allegations of negligence.

As a result of this ruling, the court ordered that the case be dismissed, and no further proceedings could be taken without the admission of properly disclosed expert evidence. This decision underscores the importance of transparency and clarity in expert evidence, particularly in complex cases where the reliability of such evidence is critical.

Orders