6 On the day before the making of these orders, on 21 November 2001, a report was prepared for the second respondent by Dr Frank Daly, a consultant clinical toxicologist. That report referred to prior correspondence between the solicitors for the second respondent and Dr S D Vasikaran, the head of the Department of Core Clinical Pathology and Biochemisty at Royal Perth Hospital, dealing with the appellant's plasma osmolality at the time of his admission to hospital which, it seems, was higher than the normal range. In a letter to the second respondent's solicitors dated 6 August 2001, Dr Vasikaran had said that, assuming that the appellant's blood glucose was within normal limits, his elevated osmolality could be explained by the presence of an unmeasured substance in his blood. In a later letter dated 3 October 2001, he said that there were various possibilities as to what that substance might have been. Some of the possibilities were ethanol (alcohol), mannitol, methanol, isopropanol, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, sorbitol and glycine. Dr Vasikaran's letters suggested that, if all possibilities other than alcohol could be excluded (and mannitol, sorbitol and glycine are used in treatment by medical staff), an estimate of the appellant's blood alcohol content could be made and this would amount to approximately 0.2 per cent. That, of course, would indicate that the appellant was highly intoxicated at the time of the accident. Dr Daly, in his report, concluded that it was unlikely that any drugs would have been administered to the appellant containing any of the substances to which Dr Vasikaran had referred or which might have the potential to alter the appellant's serum or plasma osmolality. He discussed the various drugs which might have been administered to the appellant and expressed conclusions as to their likely effect.