Howzat! The High Court, negligence and indoor cricket

This article examines the High Court case of Woods v Multi-Sport that considers the liability of an indoor cricket centre for an injury sustained by a player. It is a good example of how the issue of breach is dealt with in a sports law context and also shows how difficult it can be to determine when a sporting body will in breach of a duty of care owed to its participants.

Cattanach v Melchior : babies, blessings and burdens

This article considers the High Court decision of Cattanach v Melchior, which permitted the recovery of damages for the cost of raising a child born through medical negligence. It discusses the reasoning in each of the judgments and seeks to identify themes so as to explain the divide between the majority and minority. It also considers the impact of legislative intervention in Queensland and New South Wales.

Legal practitioners’ negligence liability for claim investigation and advice

Nigam v Harm (No 2) [2011] WASCA 221, Western Australia Court of Appeal, 18 October 2011

Wrongful birth : assessment of damages in 2013

More than 10 years have passed since the High Court of Australia confirmed the recoverability of damages for the cost of raising a child, in the well-known decision in Cattanach v Melchior. Yet a number of aspects of the assessment of such “wrongful birth” damages had not been the subject of a comprehensive court ruling. The recent decision in Waller v James was widely anticipated as potentially providing a comprehensive discussion of the principles relevant to the assessment of damages in wrongful birth cases. However, given a finding on causation adverse to the plaintiffs, the trial judge held that it was unnecessary to determine the quantum of damages. Justice Hislop did, however, make some comments in relation to the assessment of damages. This article focuses mostly on the argued damages issues relating to the costs of raising the child and the trial judge’s comments regarding the same. The Waller v James claim was issued before the enactment of the Health Care Liability Act 2001 (NSW) and the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). Although the case was therefore decided according to the “common law”, as explained below, his Honour’s comments may be of relevance to more recent claims governed by the civil liability legislation in New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia.

Pleading intention

This article considers the scope of the application of the civil liability legislation, an issue which is still being clarified by the courts, despite the passage of some ten years since the enactment of the non-uniform civil liability legislation across Australia. The introduction of the civil liability legislation has made more important the pleading of intention, in addition to negligence, so as to maximise damages awards. This involves pleading torts traditionally referred to as intentional torts – particularly trespass to the person. Such an approach is attractive for plaintiffs because, in several jurisdictions, tort claims which plead intention have been excluded from the operation of the legislative restrictions on the quantum of damages awards, and prohibitions on exemplary and aggravated damages. This approach reflects the policy that those who intend the harmful consequences of their actions should be held fully responsible.

Calligraphy and causation : two obstetric management cases - Hirst v Sydney South West Area Health and King v Western Sydney local health network

Two recent decisions of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in the context of obstetric management have highlighted firstly, the importance of keeping legible, accurate and detailed medical records; and secondly, the challenges faced by those seeking to establish causation, particularly where epidemiological evidence is relied upon...

Honesty about adverse event : more honoured in the breach than in the observance?

Part of the chapter: "Sale of Sperm, Health Records, Minimally Conscious States, and Duties of Candour" Although ethical obligations and good medical practice guidelines clearly contemplate open disclosure, there is a dearth of authority as to the nature and extent of a legal duty on Australian doctors to disclose adverse events to patients.

What the plaintiff would have done in informed consent cases

Both at common law and under the various civil liability acts, in deciding liability for breach of duty, the plaintiff always bears the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, any fact relevant to the issue of causation. For plaintiffs in medical negligence claims founded on negligent failure to provide sufficient information (informed consent cases), this onus involves persuading the court to make a favourable determination as to what a particular patient would have done (from a subjective perspective) in the hypothetical situation of the defendant not being negligent (that is, in the event that the medical practitioner had provided sufficient information to the patient)

Assessment of damages for wrongful birth and consolidation in advance care directives

The recent decision of Waller v James involved a claim by the plaintiff parents for damages for wrongful birth against the defendant doctor, Dr James, a gynaecologist with a practice in infertility and IVF procedures, who had been consulted by the plaintiffs. The second plaintiff, Mr Waller suffered an inherited anti-thrombin deficiency (ATD), a condition which results in a propensity for the blood to clot, at least in adults. Dr James subsequently recommended IVF treatment. The first plaintiff, Mrs Waller became pregnant after the first cycle of IVF treatment. Her son Keeden was born on 10 August 2000 with a genetic anti-thrombin deficiency. Keeden was released from hospital on 14 August 2000. However, he was brought back to the hospital the next day with cerebral thrombosis (CSVT). As a result of the thrombosis, he suffered permanent brain damage, cerebral palsy and related disabilities. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was in breach of contract and his common law duty of care to the plaintiffs in failing to inform them, or cause them to be informed, of the hereditary aspects of ATD. They further alleged that, had they been properly informed, they would not have proceeded to conceive a child using the male plaintiff’s sperm and therefore avoided the harm that had befallen them. The plaintiffs claimed damages to compensate them for their losses, including psychiatric and physical injuries and the costs of having, raising and caring for Keeden. The defendant was held to be not liable in negligence by Justice Hislop of the Supreme Court of New South Wales because a finding was made on medical causation which was adverse to the plaintiffs claim.