Australia, July 14 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on June 13:

1. HIS HONOUR: The first and second plaintiffs are husband and wife. They sue the defendant, The Sydney Children's Hospital Network, for what is alleged to be defamation. The Court is, in this judgment, dealing with the filing of an Amended Statement of Claim.

2. On 16 August 2024, Campbell J struck out the Proposed Amended Statement of Claim filed in the proceedings on 22 June 2023 and directed the plaintiffs to file a Further Amended Statement of Claim in conformity with the rules.

3. Purportedly pursuant to the directions of the Court in the above judgment, the plaintiffs seek to file what is now termed the "Proposed Further Amended Statement of Claim", which was emailed to the Court on 11 March 2025. The defendant opposes the grant of leave on the basis of deficiencies in the proposed pleading.

4. The defendant does not claim prejudice arising from the timing of the proposed pleading, notwithstanding that it is almost six years after the publication of the material. Nor does the defendant, at this stage, seek to strike out the proceedings.

5. The allegedly defamatory material was published in an unusual context for defamation proceedings. On 30 May 2019, the plaintiffs took their three-month old infant daughter to the hospital, being the defendant operating at Westmead, and the general medical resident who attended on the child referred the child to the Child Protection Unit.

6. On 31 May 2019, the Registrar and social worker, in consultation with a Child Protection Unit Staff Specialist, examined the child.

7. As a consequence of the examination on 31 May 2019, a report was issued on 11 June 2019 over the signature of the staff specialist who was, and I assume still is, a Forensic Paediatrician at the Child Protection Unit (hereinafter CPU).

8. As one would expect, the report expresses views. The views relate to the existence of subdural haematomas which were described as "highly concerning for a past acceleration-deceleration (shaking) injury".

9. A further report was issued on 14 August 2019, which was provided in answer to questions from caseworkers at the Family and Community Services (now known as the Department of Communities and Justice) and the Joint Child Protection Response Program. The report expressed the view that the haemorrhages that existed on the child "were highly suspicious for afflicted injury due to acceleration-deceleration (shaking) injury". This was expressed at a number of points in the report.

10. Further, the report suggested that the injuries to the child could be "explained by a shaking injury having occurred on 12 May 2019 at the time that the symptoms occurred as reported by ... [her] parents". It is unnecessary to deal with the full extent of each of the reports.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19766908c9b13894b3a4ba03)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.