Stewart v. Fehlberg & Anor

In the case of Stewart v. Fehlberg & Anor, the dispute involved multiple parties and a series of complex legal issues surrounding the admissibility of expert evidence in a civil case. The matter was before the Supreme Court of Queensland, which had to determine whether the parties could call multiple expert witnesses close to the trial and if the court had the power to prevent the calling of a witness.

The court was required to decide several legal issues. Firstly, it needed to assess the appropriateness of permitting the plaintiff and the defendants to call their respective experts, including Dr. C Andrews, Dr. D Todman, Dr. C Cantor, Dr. Maureen Field, Dr. Peter Boys, Dr. Edward Ringrose, Dr. Alison Reid, and Dr. Michael Likely. Secondly, the court had to consider the implementation of specific orders under Rule 429B UCPR, which pertains to the resolution of disagreements between experts. Additionally, the court needed to decide on the defendants' leave to amend their defence to include the allegation that the plaintiff was suffering from Parkinson’s disease.

The court ruled that the plaintiff and the defendants could call their respective experts, as outlined in the orders. The court also directed the experts to meet and attempt to resolve any disagreements in accordance with Rule 429B UCPR. Furthermore, the defendants were granted leave to amend their defence to include the allegation regarding the plaintiff's Parkinson's disease. The court also permitted the parties to call expert witnesses to give evidence by way of telephone and allowed them to apply on two days' notice. The costs of each application were reserved for a later determination.

The court issued several orders to manage the expert evidence and the proceedings. The orders allowed the parties to call their chosen experts and mandated that certain experts meet to resolve any disagreements. Additionally, the court granted leave for the defendants to amend their defence and permitted the use of telephone evidence for expert witnesses. The court also reserved the costs of each application for later determination.