A routine recommendation in witness preparation is to keep answers as short as possible, preferably to answer with a “yes” or “no,” if possible.  This case provides an interesting counter-view from the Bench: that “one-word answers” might reflect an unwillingness to “engage in meaningful dialogue,” potentially indicating partisanship.  The judgement dealt with expert evidence in considerable detail, and in doing so provides some rare and interesting insights about the impact of the demeanour of experts while they give evidence.

Background

The plaintiff (the Patient) had woken in extreme pain, lying on the floor on his left arm, with no recollection of how, or when, he came to be on the floor.

He called for an ambulance and was taken to hospital, where he underwent emergency surgery to relieve the severe swelling that had cut off the blood flow to his arm.

His recovery was long and complicated.  Despite several further surgeries he suffered significant muscle loss and nerve damage, and he took action against the hospital, claiming damages said to arise because of unacceptable delays in undertaking that initial surgery, heard in Toon v Central Adelaide Local Health Network, [2025] SADC 98.

The hospital argued that extensive, irreversible damage had already occurred well before his arrival at the hospital – which meant that earlier surgery would not have resulted in a different outcome. Complicating the determination of the facts was the Patient’s then “extensive drug use” which together with pain relieving medications post‑surgery pain levels meant that he did  not have a “clear and true memory of what occurred”.

Expert evidence

The Patient arranged expert evidence from two former experienced vascular surgeons.

The evidence given in Court by the First Expert varied from the evidence in his written report.  In two instances this was because he said, he had changed his opinion.  The Court explicitly declined to accept his evidence that “he ‘thought” he had communicated his change in opinion to his instructing solicitors, and noted that counsel “was taken by surprise by the change.”

Two other changes arose because the First Expert realised that he had incorrectly relied on information in his instructions, rather than the hospital records.

The Court found that his failure to provide a supplementary report to his instructors following his changes of opinion was a serious matter, and that his failure to advise his instructors of his amended opinions impacted his reliability and credibility as a witness.

It said that he:

was not an impressive witness. He was suspicious while being cross examined, and often combative. He at times attempted to guess what counsel was seeking in cross examination, rather than simply answering the question. His evidence was inconsistent in several areas. His attempts to cover up his changed opinions was not the behaviour expected of an expert witness. I find that I cannot rely upon [his], where it is not supported by other evidence.

The Court found that the Second Expert was:

reluctant at times to engage in meaningful dialogue, rather giving one word answers.”  He gave some evidence based on incorrect detail and was “combative and argumentative and did not always address the question put to him…at times unrestrained and rude in his responses to the respondent’s counsel…[and] not an impressive witness.

By contrast, the hospital’s expert was:

an impressive witness…[who] at all times, attempted to assist the court, including explaining and breaking down complex medical issues…[and] his answers were balanced, considered and were not partisan.

Outcome

The Court preferred the evidence of the hospital’s medical experts – that the damage had already been done by the time the patient was admitted to hospital, and found that there was no breach of duty of care.