The Court ordered the plaintiff in a total and permanent disablement claim to undergo a neuropsychological assessment by the insurer's nominated expert, holding that the assessment served a legitimate purpose and was likely to produce evidence material to the disputed issue of whether the plaintiff suffered from major depressive disorder with cognitive deficits. The Court rejected the argument that the absence of an organic brain injury issue rendered the neuropsychological evidence irrelevant, finding that interlocutory disputes about the ultimate weight of proposed medico-legal evidence should not be entertained except in the clearest cases. The Court also held that a condition requiring the insurer to undertake to serve testing materials and manuals with the report had no legal foundation and was inconsistent with s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), with the proper course being to request such materials after receipt of the report in accordance with the procedure outlined in Ken Tugrul v Tarrants Financial Consultants [No 5] [2014] NSWSC 437.
The full text is available to signed-in members.