So long as the overriding purpose in seeking a medical examination under UCPR r 23.4 is to assist in determining an aspect of the plaintiff's physical or mental condition, the possible consequential use of the evidence for credibility purposes does not disqualify the application. It is the application for an order which cannot be for a collateral purpose such as testing a party's credibility; the rule is not breached by the possible consequential use of evidence obtained.
A defendant seeking an order for medical examination under UCPR r 23.4 is not precluded from obtaining the order merely because the plaintiff bears the burden of proof on the relevant issue, or because the defendant already has some evidence supporting its case. The 'collateral purpose' limitation from Rowlands applies only to the overriding purpose of the application itself, not to the possible consequential use of the evidence obtained at trial.
No headnote yet — we'll generate the full structured AI headnote for you.
Generate the headnoteFree trial · no card required
Legal principles extracted from this case
Cases considered by Boral Transport Pty Ltd v Gulic
Cases that have considered Boral Transport Pty Ltd v Gulic
Judicial Consideration (Chronological)