Rankin v Eakin

The plaintiffs in Rankin v Eakin sought to enforce an arbitration award against the defendants. The defendants resisted enforcement on the basis of an allegation of an error of law in the arbitration. The defendants applied for orders under rule 23.5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules NSW (2005) that the plaintiffs attend medical consultations and for dispensation from the plaintiffs' right to have a medical expert present. The court was required to decide whether the power to dispense with the plaintiffs' right under rule 23.5 was available under section 14 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and whether natural justice dictated that the defendants be allowed to re-examine the plaintiffs. The court held that natural justice dictated that the defendants be allowed to re-examine the plaintiffs. The presence of another expert was likely to be deleterious to the examination, and the court considered it appropriate to allow the defendants to re-examine the plaintiffs. The orders for examination were made on the condition that the plaintiffs were not entitled to have an expert present.

The court held that the power to dispense with the plaintiffs' right to have a medical expert present under rule 23.5 was available under section 14 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). The court considered that the defendants' application was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The court noted that the defendants had been denied an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiffs at the arbitration, and it was in the interests of justice to allow the defendants to re-examine the plaintiffs. The court also considered that the presence of another expert was likely to be deleterious to the examination, and it was appropriate to allow the defendants to re-examine the plaintiffs without the presence of an expert. The orders for examination were made on the condition that the plaintiffs were not entitled to have an expert present.