Problem
Penny is suing the Demons Bus Company ("DBC") to recover for brain injuries she allegedly received when struck by a DBC bus at noon on 25 September 2021, at the intersection of Parliament and University streets, in Melbourne CBD. DBC is alleging that Penny's injuries were caused by a fall at her office. At trial, the following issues arose:
Counsel for DBC also called Professor Henberg, a brain specialist, who stated that he had examined Penny and that Penny's loss of memory and insane behaviour were caused by worry and anxiety, not by any injury. On cross-examination, counsel for Penny showed Dr Henberg a research paper from the Australian Journal of Medicine (fictitious), a highly respected periodical among brain specialists, and then read him its title, which indicated that it was a reference work on brain injuries. After Professor Henberg admitted that he had heard of this research paper, counsel for Penny proposed to ask whether Professor Henberg realised that the authors of this paper had come to a conclusion directly contrary to Professor Henberg's. The paper was not offered or admitted into evidence.
Should Penny's counsel be allowed to ask these questions over objection?