Vincent v SAS Trustee Corporation - [2016] NSWDC 73

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Vincent v SAS Trustee Corporation [2016] NSWDC 73
Hearing dates: 14 March 2016
Date of orders: 14 March 2016
Decision date: 14 March 2016
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
Notice of motion is dismissed

Defendant to pay plaintiff’s costs of the motion

Hearing date of 18 April 2016 confirmed
Leave to the defendant to serve an up-to-date comment from Dr George on the opinion of Dr Anderson
Catchwords: POLICE SUPERANNUATION – Practice and Procedure – Motion to compel plaintiff to attend a forensic psychological examination - Assessing doctor diagnosed plaintiff with 3% WPI in 2014 and 7% in 2015 and indicated difference between 2014 and 2015 figures relates to a degree of variation and inconsistency in the plaintiff’s presentation – Assessing doctor recommended “MMPI-2-RF” forensic psychological examination – Medical examinations must be relevant to a party’s physical or mental condition where it is an issue in the proceedings and cannot be used for a collateral purpose such as testing a party’s credibility – No distinction between seeking to obtain evidence about a party’s reliability generally and seeking to obtain evidence concerning the reliability of statements taken into account when performing WPI assessment for psychiatric or psychological injury – No proper purpose in ordering plaintiff to attend upon examination
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998
Cases Cited: Boral Transport Pty Limited v Gulic [2013] NSWCA 150
Rowlands v State of NSW [2009] NSWCA 136
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Andrew Vincent (Plaintiff)
SAS Trustee Corporation (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr T Ower (Plaintiff)
Mr L Robison (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Walter Madden Jenkins (Plaintiff)
Kaden Boriss Legal & Business Strategists (Defendant)

File Number(s): RJ322/15
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: There is currently before me a motion on notice, the notice of which was filed on 4 March 2016. The first three prayers for relief are these:

"1. That the plaintiff be compelled to attend a forensic psychological examination with Dr Jennifer Batchelor, neuro psychologist/psychologist, on a date to be re-scheduled by the defendant.
2. That the hearing of this matter listed on 18 April 2016 be vacated.
3. That the matter be listed for further callover on 14 April 2016."

The following chronology should be borne in mind:

Date

Event

25 May 1967

Plaintiff was born.

26 June 1987

Plaintiff attested as a probationary constable of police.

2001

Plaintiff involved in a siege whilst stationed at Byron Bay and serving as a member of a target action group focusing on mid-level drug crime and violent crime.

Plaintiff involved in a siege. Thereafter plaintiff starts suffering panic attacks.

Plaintiff is diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder by Dr Jill Pryor, general practitioner, at Lennox Head.

These are the first of a number of incidents of which the plaintiff has given a history, which events are alleged to have given rise to PTSD

2003

Plaintiff involved in another siege at Ballina where an alleged offender commits suicide.

2006

Plaintiff…

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 Vincent v SAS Trustee Corporation 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: [2016] NSWDC 73
Decision Date: 14 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are Vincent, the plaintiff, and the SAS Trustee Corporation, the defendant. The dispute centres around a motion filed by the defendant to compel the plaintiff to undergo a forensic psychological examination. This motion was made in the context of a legal proceeding involving police superannuation. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The defendant sought the examination on the basis of discrepancies in the plaintiff's assessments of his Whole Person Impairment (WPI) between 2014 and 2015, which the assessing doctor attributed to a degree of variation and inconsistency in the plaintiff’s presentation. The doctor recommended an examination using the MMPI-2-RF.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defendant’s motion was appropriate and whether the forensic psychological examination was relevant and not being sought for a collateral purpose. The court examined the principles governing medical examinations in legal proceedings, noting that such examinations must be relevant to a party's physical or mental condition and must not be used for purposes such as testing a party's credibility. The court further clarified that there was no meaningful distinction between seeking evidence about a party's reliability in general and seeking evidence concerning the reliability of statements taken into account during a WPI assessment for psychiatric or psychological injury. The court concluded that there was no proper purpose in ordering the plaintiff to attend the examination as it was not relevant to the plaintiff’s physical or mental condition in the context of the proceedings.

The court dismissed the defendant's notice of motion, holding that there was no proper purpose for the proposed forensic psychological examination. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion. The hearing date was confirmed for 18 April 2016. Additionally, the court granted leave to the defendant to serve an up-to-date comment from Dr George on the opinion of Dr Anderson.

Orders

Orders of the court

Notice of motion is dismissed

Defendant to pay plaintiff’s costs of the motion

Hearing date of 18 April 2016 confirmed

Leave to the defendant to serve an up-to-date comment from Dr George on the opinion of Dr Anderson

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Vincent v SAS Trustee Corporation [2016] NSWDC 73
Hearing dates:	14 March 2016
Date of orders:	14 March 2016
Decision date:	14 March 2016
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	Notice of motion is dismissed Defendant to pay plaintiff’s costs of the motion Hearing date of 18 April 2016 confirmed Leave to the defendant to serve an up-to-date comment from Dr George on the opinion of Dr Anderson
Catchwords:	POLICE SUPERANNUATION – Practice and Procedure – Motion to compel plaintiff to attend a forensic psychological examination - Assessing doctor diagnosed plaintiff with 3% WPI in 2014 and 7% in 2015 and indicated difference between 2014 and 2015 figures relates to a degree of variation and inconsistency in the plaintiff’s presentation – Assessing doctor recommended “MMPI-2-RF” forensic psychological examination – Medical examinations must be relevant to a party’s physical or mental condition where it is an issue in the proceedings and cannot be used for a collateral purpose such as testing a party’s credibility – No distinction between seeking to obtain evidence about a party’s reliability generally and seeking to obtain evidence concerning the reliability of statements taken into account when performing WPI assessment for psychiatric or psychological injury – No proper purpose in ordering plaintiff to attend upon examination
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 1995 Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998
Cases Cited:	Boral Transport Pty Limited v Gulic [2013] NSWCA 150 Rowlands v State of NSW [2009] NSWCA 136
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Andrew Vincent (Plaintiff) SAS Trustee Corporation (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr T Ower (Plaintiff) Mr L Robison (Defendant) Solicitors: Walter Madden Jenkins (Plaintiff) Kaden Boriss Legal & Business Strategists (Defendant)
File Number(s):	RJ322/15
Publication restriction:	No

Date	Event
25 May 1967	Plaintiff was born.
26 June 1987	Plaintiff attested as a probationary constable of police.
2001	Plaintiff involved in a siege whilst stationed at Byron Bay and serving as a member of a target action group focusing on mid-level drug crime and violent crime. Plaintiff involved in a siege. Thereafter plaintiff starts suffering panic attacks. Plaintiff is diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder by Dr Jill Pryor, general practitioner, at Lennox Head. These are the first of a number of incidents of which the plaintiff has given a history, which events are alleged to have given rise to PTSD
2003	Plaintiff involved in another siege at Ballina where an alleged offender commits suicide.
2006	Plaintiff…