Liability in negligence and the failure to disclose multiple risks in surgery : I would have been willing to run the risk

It has been 21 years since the decision in Rogers v Whitaker and the legal principles concerning informed consent and liability for negligence are still strongly grounded in this landmark High Court decision. This paper considers more recent developments in the law concerning the failure to disclose inherent risks in medical procedures, focusing on the decision in Wallace v Kam [2013] HCA 19. In this case, the appellant underwent a surgical procedure that carried a number of risks. The surgery itself was not performed in a sub-standard way, but the surgeon failed to disclose two risks to the patient, a failure that constituted a breach of the surgeon’s duty of care in negligence. One of the undisclosed risks was considered to be less serious than the other, and this lesser risk eventuated causing injury to the appellant. The more serious risk did not eventuate, but the appellant argued that if the more serious risk had been disclosed, he would have avoided his injuries completely because he would have refused to undergo the procedure. Liability was disputed by the surgeon, with particular reference to causation principles. The High Court of Australia held that the appellant should not be compensated for harm that resulted from a risk he would have been willing to run. We examine the policy reasons underpinning the law of negligence in this specific context and consider some of the issues raised by this unusual case. We question whether some of the judicial reasoning adopted in this case, represents a significant shift in traditional causation principles.

Federal Court Rules 027 r 11 - Subpoena to give evidence

In Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Rural and General Insurance Let [2004] FCA 933, Gyles J considered what he described as "a novel question", namely, whether taking steps to prepare to give oral evidence when subpoenaed to attend for that purpose, including the obtaining of legal advice and assistance, could be recovered by the witness under O 27 r 11 of the Federal Court Rules

Practice and procedure - District Court Act 1967 s79 - transfer of proceeding pending in Magistrates Court to District Court

In Lambert v Surplice [2004] QDC 092 McGill DCJ considered the extent to which the court should exercise a discretion on an application under s79 of the District Court Act 1967 to transfer a proceeding pending in the Magistrates Court to the District Court.

Indemnity costs - whether indemnity costs can be ordered in Magistrates Court

In Asset Loan Management v Mamap Pty Ltd [2005] QDC 295, McGill DCJ held that costs may be recovered in Magistrates Courts on the indemnity basis. His Honour was satisfied his conclusion in this respect was not precluded by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Beardmore v Franklins Management Services Pty Ltd [2002] QCA 60

Default judgment - whether irregular - whether court has residual discretion not to set aside default judgment irregularly entered

In CB Richard Ellis (C) Pty Ltd v Wingate Properties Pty Ltd [2005] QDC 399 McGill DCJ examined whether the court now has a discretion to set aside an irregularly entered default judgment.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - obligation to disclose

In Turpin v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd (unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, S5216 of 2001), Mullins J, 17.10.2001) the plaintiff applied for a declaration that the respondent disclose pursuant to s47 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 copies of three statements referred to in a loss assessor's investigation report as "attached". The issue involved determination of whether the statements must be disclosed under s48(2) even though protected by legal professional privilege. The Court applied the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in James v Workcover Queensland.

Practice and Procedures - Cross v Queensland Rugby Football Union Ltd [2001] QSC 173

The decision of Chesterman J in Cross v Queensland Rugby Football Union Ltd [2001] QSC 173 (Supreme Court of Queensland, No 3426 of 1997), Chesterman J, 30.5.2001) opens the possibilities for delivering interrogatories, particularly in the context of interrogatories relating to an opponent's version of events.

Right to trial by jury - construction of Uniform Civil Procedure r474

In Smit v Chan [2001] QSC 493 (Supreme Court of Queensland, S1233 of 1995, Mullins J, 21.12.2001) the sixth defendant successfully obtained an order that a complex medical negligence action be tried without a jury. This was the first application to be decided under r474 of UCPR 1999, and the decision is a significant precedent for defendants in similar cases who want to avoid the unpredictability of outcome and the inflated damages awards sometimes associated with jury trials.

Damages for personal injuries in Queensland : interest please!

The article revises established principles relating to the awarding of damages to the date of judgment and discusses decisions in the High Court and in the Supreme Court of Queensland which have caused significant changes to the manner of assessments of interest. Its purpose is to provide for practitioners involved in personal injuries litigation in Queensland a current set of guidelines as to the manner in which the wide discretion to award interest may be expected to be exercised.

Disclosure of documents : by duty, court order, or beyond reach?

The article examines the decision in Erskine v McDowall [2001] QDC 192, where the Court considered an application for an order that the defendant disclose documents to which she had a right of access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).

Should the court direct that costs ordered to be recovered on the indemnity basis be assessed by reference to a costs agreement between the successful party and their solicitors?

The decision in Hook v Boreham & QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2006] QDC 304 considered whether the court should go further than order that costs be assessed on the indemnity basis, but should also specify the basis by which those indemnity costs should be determined. The decision makes it clear that under r704(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, questions of that nature are ordinarily preserved to the discretion of the Registrar.

“Best interests” and withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from an adult who lacks capacity in the parens patriae jurisdiction

Disputes about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment are increasingly coming before Australian Supreme Courts. Such cases are generally heard in the parens patriae jurisdiction where the test applied is what is in the patient’s “best interests”. However, the application of the “best interests” test, and its meaning, remains unclear in this context. To shed light on this emerging body of jurisprudence, this article analyses the Australian superior court decisions that consider an adult’s best interests in the context of decisions about life-sustaining treatment. We identify a number of themes from the current body of cases and consider how these themes may guide future decision-making. After then considering the law in the United Kingdom, we suggest an approach for assessing best interests that could be adopted by Australian Supreme Courts. We argue that the suggested approach will lead to a more structured and systematic decision-making process that better promotes the best interests of the patient.

Succession law keeping pace with changes in technology and community expectations – informal wills

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into recent developments in the way the law of succession allows people to use new technologies to document their testamentary intentions in an informal way. Design/methodology/approach – This article considers one area in which the law has arguably kept good pace with advances in society’s expectations and technological change – the law of succession. This article examines the legislative reforms in Queensland and other jurisdictions permitting the recognition of informal wills and the decided cases in the area. In particular, the article examines the decision in a Queensland Supreme Court case in which the court recognised the validity of a will made on an iPhone. Research limitations/implications – This is a doctrinal analysis, not an empirical study, and accordingly is limited to providing details specific to the legislation and the court cases selected.

Case note : Keegan v Sussan Corporation (Aust) Pty Ltd

A recent decision of the Queensland Supreme Court highlights that merely having a policy in a workplace is not sufficient in itself – the policy must be implemented and followed if an employer wishes to establish that it is not in breach of its duty of care owed to employees. In Keegan v Sussan Corporation (Aust) Pty Ltd an employee successfully sued in negligence for her psychiatric injury caused by her employer’s failure to follow its bullying and harassment policy.

Posthumous conception in South Australia : the case continues in Re H, AE (No 3) [2013] SASC 196

This editorial considers the issue of posthumous conception as discussed in the case of Re H, AE (No 3) [2013] SASC 196, which involved an application by a South Australian woman to the Supreme Court for authorisation to export her deceased partner's sperm to the Australian Capital Territory, for use in an assisted reproductive technology procedure.