The case illustrates the application of [name withheld] v [name withheld] principles to uphold trial judge credibility findings in medical negligence cases where no incontrovertible facts or uncontested testimony are identified to displace them. On costs, where a Calderbank offer is unreasonably rejected but a subsequent settlement agreement is frustrated by the court's refusal to make consent orders, the causal chain for indemnity costs may be broken from the date of the frustrated agreement, with costs reverting to a party and party basis.
The full text is available to signed-in members.