The use of medico-legal opinions at times, is just downright excessive. 5 reports from the same expert, disagreeing with other experts, every time a new report is served and making combative opinions is perhaps what irks me.
That's not a problem with the system per se, that's a problem with the manner in which the solicitors are conducting the litigation. It tends to draw the ire of judges and costs assessors alike.
there is a stronger reliance upon treater reports, and rightfully so.
Depends on the area. Slip and fall? To an extent. Medical negligence? Treating clinician reports are relatively meaningless.
Has this been implemented in other jurisdictions?
Not that I'm aware of. Certainly not to the extent it's used in NSW. It has its ups and its downs in litigation generally, but I quite like it in personal injury.
It would be nice to have the ball park amounts and injuries at the earlier stage and would likely save a lot of time and money.
If I had a dollar for every mediation/ISC I've gone into for a defendant, having given a quantum advice beforehand, but completely blind as to the Plaintiff's idea of the numbers, I'd be able to buy a beer or five. It really doesn't help them out, because it just makes the insurer play its cards close to its chest.