Background
Antonakis Eleftheriou claims damages for psychiatric injury arising from a May 2016 incident at a Botany development site, where an object fell from scaffolding onto his head. He was employed as a foreman by the second defendant; the first defendant was undertaking construction work at the site.
On the second day of the estimated 10-day hearing, the first defendant cross-examined Mr Eleftheriou about 861 pages of bank records produced shortly before trial. The records showed extensive poker-machine spending. The plaintiff sought an adjournment on the third day so his psychiatric evidence could address whether gambling problems were connected to the alleged injury and could affect damages or the need to protect any award.
The Court’s Holding
Sirtes J granted the adjournment. Although earlier material contained indications of gambling, the Court accepted that the extent of the problem emerged only in cross-examination after the late production of bank records. The issue needed proper expert exploration because it could affect quantum and, if damages were awarded, whether a financial manager should be appointed to protect lump-sum funds.
The Court found that the defendants’ prejudice was remediable: the plaintiff had not closed his case, the defendants would have time to reconsider their position and obtain responsive psychiatric evidence, and the matter could still conclude in the 2026 law term. However, the Court refused to include the plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist, Dr David Grace, in the further psychiatric conclave. The narrow causal question could be addressed by the existing independent experts, and adding Dr Grace risked multiplying issues; any consequences of the plaintiff’s earlier forensic choices were not to be visited on the defendants.
Key Takeaways
- An adjournment may be justified where significant new evidence emerges during trial and is material to damages.
- Case-management prejudice does not bar an adjournment where it can be remedied and the hearing can still be completed promptly.
- A treating psychiatrist is not automatically appropriate for an expert conclave, particularly where an independent expert already represents that party’s case.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Civil Procedure Act overriding purpose in a practical trial setting: fairness required new psychiatric evidence, but the remedy was tightly managed through a resumed hearing, staged expert reports and directions.
It also underscores that late-emerging issues can alter not only causation and damages, but the appropriate management of any eventual damages award.