Najjarin v Goodman [2024] NSWDC 81 (link to CaseLaw)
Although arising in the context of a motor vehicle accident claim, this interlocutory matter is of interest as it concerns an application by a defendant for an order pursuant to UCPR pt 23 r 4 that the Plaintiff attend a medico-legal examination with a neuropsychologist. The court noted at [2]:
The affidavit in support of the notice of motion by the Defendant attorney, … deposes at [6] “The defendant wishes to test the Plaintiff’s credibility, having regard to the conclusions reached by Dr Synnott. The most appropriate vehicle to do so, in the Defendant’s respectful submission, is via psychometric testing including administering the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM)” as the purpose of medico-legal examination by A/Prof Batchelor.
The application failed as it was supported only by a lawyer’s statement (in affidavit form) as to the most appropriate vehicle for assessing the credibility of the Plaintiff’s complaints. The court stated that it is simply not within the specialist opinion of lawyers to identify precisely which are: the appropriate examinations and procedures; what the nature of them is; and, whether or not they would invade those other rights of the Plaintiff …should they be conducted.
[BillMaddensWordpress #2239]
Bill Madden's Wordpress 