Litigation … Claims of a “stratagem” … Psychiatrist gives hundreds of expert reports to litigants, but cannot be located for cross-examination … Doctor is subpoenaed but fails the show in person … The syrup in every pudding … Dizzo judge asks the Supreme Court to examine the possibility of contempt … Sohini Mehta reports on a strange case 

Dr Klass Akkerman has provided medico-legal reports in hundreds of matters, particularly for minors, but hasn’t shown up to court when subpoenaed. 

At a hearing on April 10, June Dorothy Stufano, the defendant in a civil case to be decided under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act (MACA), opposed the admission of Dr Akkerman’s expert opinion report into evidence.

Counsel for the defendant, Tony Renshaw, objected on the basis that Dr Akkerman was unavailable for cross-examination despite his attendance being required. 

Renshaw further alleged a “stratagem” in the form of Dr Akkerman “repeatedly, if not habitually, providing very generous assessments under s.131 MACA in regard to non-economic loss”.

Montgomery DCJ felt lawyers on both sides of the proceedings hadn’t expended the required energy to achieve the evidence of Dr Akkerman at the hearing.

Shams Ahmed, a solicitor for the plaintiff, gave evidence that his firm had retained Dr Akkerman as a medico-legal expert in hundreds of matters and, as far as Ahmed was aware, Akkerman had never given evidence in court. 

Renshaw, no doubt thinking about lunch, posed the following question to Mr Ahmed: 

“Dr Akkerman is the syrup that’s put into every pudding, isn’t he, namely, he’s in every case that your firm brings, isn’t he, effectively?”

Ahmed agreed. 

Renshaw also extracted an admission that in the matter of a plaintiff minor named Lahleugh, Akkerman had been subpoenaed and didn’t turn up. The proceedings were adjourned and three plaintiffs were made to pay the costs.

Judge Montgomery stood the matter over to April 20 and on that occasion the psychiatrist was represented in court.

Renshaw pressed the allegation of contempt as well as the alleged “stratagem”. 

Montgomery noted these were very serious allegations of devious conduct against which “[p]arties in these proceedings and the community deserve protection”. 

On April 20, the judge invited affidavit evidence regarding whether or not the doctor should show cause.

Montgomery said that subject to the evidence to be heard, the hearing of the principal dispute between the parties might be able to proceed on a date available to Dr Akkerman.  

The affidavits of Dr Akkerman and his secretary Mandy Barry were filed on May 1. 

The judge found the evidence wanting and inconsistent with information given to him by “reliable counsel”, John De Greenlaw, for the plaintiff. 

On that occasion, De Greenlaw had obtained instructions that Mandy Barry had told Ahmed that she didn’t know Dr Akkerman’s whereabouts and that she could only contact him by email. She had sent an email and was awaiting a reply.

Akkerman deposed in his affidavit to being in New Zealand on April 10. 

The judge couldn’t fathom why Akkerman’s sojourn prevented him from giving evidence by alternative means, waxing lyrical about NZ: 

“… a modern, sophisticated society with the provision throughout its community and inhabited places of ready opportunity for communication.”

Montgomery pointed to telephone communication between Barry and Akkerman which “causes me to be concerned as to the accuracy or the completeness of that which I was told from the bar table”.  

There was also evidence that Akkerman suggested Barry email the lawyers who issued the subpoena informing them that April 10 was not an available date to the doctor. That email was lost in the ether and neither she nor Akkerman expected that the parties were not aware that he wasn’t available to give evidence to court on that day. 

The 174-page affidavit of Barbara Santa Casado for the defendant, filed May 3, 2017, was so voluminous that Renshaw’s summary was invited. 

Renshaw said the affidavit alleged a substantial and provable history of Dr Akkerman’s failure to attend when required, including by subpoena. 

Montgomery was most disappointed the psychiatrist didn’t respond to Ahmed’s evidence as to his non-attendances, excluded himself and sent the principal proceedings, in addition to the matter of contempt, to the Supreme Court for determination in the interests of efficiency and fairness. 

In the program for a pharmaceutical conference last year Dr Klass Akkerman was described in these terms:

“Klaas is a Psychiatrist who gained his original medical degree in Holland and his specialist qualifications in Australia. He has been hiding in the bush, in splendid isolation since 1992. He resides in Forster, NSW a place so beautiful it is full of Victorians all the time. 

Being a country psychiatrist he sees 40 patients a day. He calls himself a psychiatrist GP. Because of the tyranny of numbers he has medical experience well beyond his years. Since 2000, he has branched out into medico-legal work and as a consequence now spends half his time in Sydney and was key-opinion leader in the launch of several new psychiatric medications. He enjoys speaking to GPs and pharmacists.” 

See: Mohamed Salim by his next friend Racha Salim v June Dorothy Stufano