Panagiotopoulos v Rajendram

Case [2007] NSWCA 265

New South Wales


Court of Appeal


CITATION: PANAGIOTOPOULOS v RAJENDRAM [2007] NSWCA 265
HEARING DATE(S): 26 June 2007
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
28 September 2007
JUDGMENT OF: Tobias JA at 1; McColl JA at 2; Basten JA at 3
DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE – expert evidence – differences of opinion accentuated by litigation process – resolution a matter of evaluative judgment

EVIDENCE – whether expert evidence relevant to foreseeability of risk of psychiatric injury – where defendant a medical practitioner

TORTS – medical negligence – duty of care of medical practitioner to husband of patient – loss of chance due to delay in diagnosis – psychiatric injury to husband due to pain and suffering of wife arising from late diagnosis

TORTS – medical negligence – reasonable foreseeability of psychiatric injury – admissibility of expert evidence to establish reasonable foreseeability of psychiatric injury – expert evidence of loss of chance – expert evidence of psychiatric injury – where expert psychiatric evidence based on false or misleading information provided by patient – whether error in trial judge’s rejection of expert evidence
CASES CITED: Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 469
Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 269
John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Canny (1981) 148 CLR 218
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254
Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383
Naxakis v Western General Hospital (1999) 197 CLR 269
O’Leary v Oolong Aboriginal Corporation Inc [2004] NSWCA 7
Rufo v Hosking (2004) 61 NSWLR 678
Skulander v Willoughby City Council [2007] NSWCA 116
State of New South Wales v Burton</i>] [2006] NSWCA 12; (2006) Aust Torts Rep 81-826; 3 DDCR 398
Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317
Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 77 ALJR 1598
PARTIES: Periklis Panagiotopoulos – Appellant
Dr N. Rajendram – Respondent
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40683/06
COUNSEL: N. Connolly, Solicitor on the Record - Appellant
M. Kearney - Respondent
SOLICITORS: Niall Connolly Lawyers – Appellant
Blake Dawson Waldron Lawyers - Respondent
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 3158/03
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Rein DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 28 September 2006




                          CA 40683/06
                          DC 3158/03

                          TOBIAS JA
                          McCOLL JA
                          BASTEN JA

                          28 September 2007
Periklis PANAGIOTOPOULOS v Dr N. RAJENDRAM
Headnote

In April 1996, the wife of the Appellant, Mrs Panagiotopoulos, had a consultation with the Respondent, Dr Rajendram. The Respondent was made aware of blood tests that another practitioner had recently ordered for Mrs Panagiotopoulos, which indicated abnormalities. The Respondent advised Mrs Panagiotopoulos that she could continue with a planned trip to Greece but should have further blood tests upon her return in two months. In June 1996, Mrs Panagiotopoulos had a further consultation with the Respondent. She complained of vaginal discomfort and pain on sitting. The Respondent referred her to a general surgeon, Dr Carmalt, but did not order further blood tests and failed to advise…

Continue reading Panagiotopoulos v Rajendram

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Panagiotopoulos v Rajendram [2007] NSWCA 265
Case
[2007] NSWCA 265
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Panagiotopoulos v Rajendram*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal concerning the admissibility and weight of expert evidence. The dispute arose from a motor vehicle accident, and the central issue on appeal related to the differing opinions of expert witnesses regarding the cause of the accident.

The Court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting certain expert evidence and, more broadly, how to approach expert evidence where significant differences of opinion exist between experts, particularly when those differences appear to have been exacerbated by the litigation process itself. The Court also had to consider the weight to be given to such evidence in reaching a factual conclusion.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's approach, holding that the resolution of disputes where expert opinions diverge is ultimately a matter of evaluative judgment for the trial judge. The Court emphasised that the adversarial nature of litigation can sometimes accentuate differences between experts, but this does not necessarily render their evidence inadmissible or devoid of weight. The trial judge's role is to assess the entirety of the evidence, including the expert testimony, and to form their own conclusions based on that assessment.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.