Steven Jelic v Edward Bader and Gerardina Bader

[2010] NSWDC 166

CITATION:	Steven Jelic v Edward Bader and Gerardina Bader [2010] NSWDC 166
JUDGMENT DATE:	16 February 2010
JURISDICTION:	District Court of New South Wales
JUDGMENT OF:	Cogswell SC DCJ
DECISION:	The author of the report is qualified to express the views contained in the report. The report is admissible with the exception of the footnotes.
CATCHWORDS:	CIVIL LAW - objection to doctor's report - objection based on expertise of author of report - objection based on availability of material referred to in report - weight rather than admissibility
PARTIES:	Steven Jelic Edward Bader Gerardina Bader
FILE NUMBER(S):	08/599
COUNSEL:	Mr Lidden SC and Ms Welsh for the plaintiff Mr Gambi for the defendant

JUDGMENT

1. Mr Lidden S.C.’s further objection is based upon two matters. One is the expertise of the author of exhibit VD1 and the other concerns the availability of certain material referred to by the author of exhibit VD1 in footnotes to his report.

2. I have looked at the curriculum vitae of Dr Gibson, the author of the report and I am satisfied by looking at his claimed expertise that he is qualified to express opinions on the topics referred to in his report. His opinions are articulated and argued, perhaps not completely, but that may be a matter which, as the authorities say, would go to the weight of the report or even to its admissibility as an argument presented at a later stage of the case.

3. However turning to Mr Lidden’s second point, he refers to three footnotes which in turn appear to refer to articles in publications by experts in various fields. Those footnotes are cited by Dr Gibson as the source of authority for various propositions asserted by him in the body of his report. In that sense some of the propositions which are asserted by the expert are not as fully articulated as they could be. One has to bear in mind that this report was served just over twenty-four hours ago.

4. I expect that the plaintiff will be met with some difficulty in not having access to those articles. I am not sure when they can be made available and what can be made of them when they become available, but that is perhaps a matter which can be explored shortly.

5. For the time being I am of the opinion that the author of the report is qualified to express the views which he does and has expressed them in a form which is admissible with the exception of the footnotes and I expect that might be more a matter of case management than admissibility.

**********