An expert medical opinion should not be rejected merely because the history provided was incomplete; the failure must be in some important data, not merely a trifling respect, and the court must consider whether the facts proved are sufficiently like those on which the opinion was based. Where a trial judge relies on one report from an expert but ignores a later report from the same expert that is inconsistent, this constitutes material error. The question of whether s 5E of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) displaces the Watts v Rake evidential burden on defendants to disentangle pre-existing causes was left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.