Ghalandari v Wesdow Pty Limited

The Court revoked an earlier order permitting the plaintiff to serve a further occupational physician's report, holding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any justification for retaining a second occupational physician addressing substantially the same issues (diagnosis, prognosis, treatment needs, and work capacity) in a relatively straightforward personal injury claim. The Court emphasised that the mere fact that a defendant's expert has expressed a contrary opinion on loss of earning capacity does not warrant qualifying an additional expert in the same discipline. The Court stated an unqualified expectation that a party seeking to retain a second or further expert in the same discipline must disclose that intention to the opposing party in a timely way with a clear explanation, and must disclose the existence of prior experts in the same discipline to the Court when seeking directions.