The Plaintiff argues that the First Defendant’s diagnosis was unsupportable simply because none of his factual or expert witnesses thought the pons had rebounded to the same degree that he believed or identified the same region of haematoma as intra-axial that he had. She alleges that even if, for instance, DW11 Dr Pang’s evidence on rebound of the pons is accepted, DW11 Dr Pang drew a smaller pons than the First Defendant did. This contrasts with the Plaintiff’s experts, who opined that there was no pontine haematoma, except for PW3 Dr Gan who opined that there was 5–10% intra-axial haematoma and petechial haemorrhages in the brainstem. The Bolam-Bolitho test does not require the court to rule on where exactly the boundaries of the pons are (and by extension, where the boundaries of the intra-axial haematoma are). Even the very experienced experts could not agree on this important issue. The court should not act as though it is knowledgeable in the field of neurosurgery, and is better-placed than all the experts combined to be able to decide whether to accept the Plaintiff’s or the Defendants’ version. Under the Bolam-Bolitho test, the critical issue is whether the First Defendant’s view (ie, that there can be some rebound of the pons such that there is a “significant brainstem haematoma component in addition to an extra-axial blood clot” in the tumour cavity) is logical and defensible. That is because even some rebound would mean the haematoma in the tumour cavity was partially intra-axial in the pons, and even a small haematoma in the pons can be significant because the pons is itself a small structure. This was the evidence of PW3 Dr Gan, the Plaintiff’s expert, who said that “in the brain stem when it is very small, a small clot can give a big effect”. Similarly, the Defendants’ expert who took the most conservative view (ie, that the pons had rebounded the least), DW3 Dr Hong, thought that having haematoma in the pons to that small degree still entailed a poor prognosis. In other words, the Defendants’ experts opined that any rebounding of the pons into the tumour cavity indicated intra-axial or pontine haematoma. Though they diverged on the precise extent of rebound (hence the precise extent of intra-axial haemorrhage), they were ad idem on the Plaintiff’s poor prognosis because even a small pontine haematoma was, in their view, serious. Thus, I do not accept that the First Defendant’s view cannot be said to be supported by a body of logical and sensible expert opinions simply because his experts do not take precisely the same view of the extent of pons rebound or intra-axial haematoma. What is important is that they all agreed that the intra-axial haematoma, to the extent that they identified, was significant.