Ziliotto v Hakim

The appeal concerned the adequacy of reasons provided by a trial judge in a medical negligence claim, and the assessment of damages and costs. The dispute arose from a medical negligence claim brought by the appellant, Mr. Ziliotto, against the respondent, Dr. Hakim. The primary issues on appeal related to the trial judge's reasons for preferring one expert's opinion over another, the assessment of damages, and the application of costs orders, particularly in light of an offer of compromise.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge's reasons for preferring the respondent's expert evidence were sufficiently detailed, especially given conflicting expert testimony. Further, the court had to consider the principles governing the assessment of damages in medical negligence cases, and whether the costs orders made at first instance, including the treatment of an offer of compromise and a subsequent Calderbank letter, were appropriate. The court also had to consider the appellant's entitlement to costs of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge was not required to address every sub-issue raised by the experts, the reasons provided for preferring one expert opinion over another were inadequate. The court held that where there is conflicting expert testimony, a judge must provide a clear explanation for adopting one opinion and rejecting the other. The court also varied the assessment of damages, finding that the original award did not adequately reflect the evidence. Regarding costs, the court determined that the offer of compromise was not in accordance with the relevant rules, and that the discretion to award costs should be exercised by considering the overall conduct of the parties and the outcome of the litigation. The appeal was allowed in part, with the judgment for the appellant at first instance being increased, and the costs orders at first instance and on appeal were significantly altered.