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)

Justice for pollution-victims in China and Australia

The concept of environmental justice is well developed in North America, but is still at the evolutionary stage in most other jurisdictions around the globe. This paper seeks to explore two jurisdictions where incidents of environmental justice are likely to be seen in the future as a result of manufacturing and mining practices. The discussion will centre upon avenues to environmental justice for both private citizens and the public at large. The first jurisdiction considered is China, where environmental liability claims brought by Chinese citizens have increased at an annual average of 25% (Yang 2011). Manufacturing is at the core of the Chinese economy and is responsible for some of the unprecedented economic growth in the region. Less discussed are the industry impacts on water and air pollution levels and the associated implications of these pollutants on local communities. China introduced the Tort Liability Law (TLL) in 2010, which may provide avenues to justice for private citizens. The other jurisdiction considered by the paper is Australia, where the mining boom has buffered the Australian economy from the global financial crisis. There is some limited case law in Australia where private citizens have made a claim in toxic torts; however the framework is underdeveloped in terms of the significant risks facing indigenous and local communities in mining areas and also by comparison to the developments of the TLL framework in China. This paper traces the regulatory responses to the affects of major industries on communities in China and Australia. From this it examines the need for environmental justice avenues that align with rule of law principles.

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.

The state of the art defence : defining the Australian experience in the context of pharmaceuticals

One of the defences within Part 3-5 of the Australian Consumer Law is the state of the art, or development risk defence. This defence, although significant, has often been neglected in Australian jurisprudential analysis and has triggered at most generic academic analysis. However, with the rise of pharmaceutical and medical device litigation in Australia, it could become a vital weapon for Australian manufacturers against product liability claims. This paper will firstly review the two ways this defence could operate. It will also discuss the three types of defects which the defence could apply to. This paper aims to determine exactly when and how this defence should apply in Australia, in the context of pharmaceutical product liability claims.

An analysis of Australia's legal regime for imposing liability on manufacturers of pharmaceutical drugs

Following a trial in June 2009 where the Federal Court heard submissions regarding whether Merck Sharpe and Dohme Australia should be held liable for an increased risk of cardiovascular conditions noted in patients who had taken the anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx, a judgment was handed down against MSDA in March 2010. MSDA appealed to the Full Federal Court, where they were successful. Special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia was rejected in May 2012. This article will examine the themes raised in the trial judgment and the appropriateness of Australia’s statutory consumer protection regime through the lens of pharmaceutical drug injuries and side effects.

An examination of the liability of a construction contract certifier who gets it wrong

Construction contracts often provide that decisions under the contract will be made by a certifier. This paper reviews the liability issues when a certifier makes a mistake. We do that in light of recent pronouncements by the High Court of Australia and the New South Wales Court of Appeal on negligence. We look at this question in the context of traditional construction contract arrangements and also consider the implications for Public Private Partnerships and the typical contract arrangements entered into to facilitate these transactions.

Honesty about adverse events - more honoured in the breach than in the observance

The medical board of Australia Code of conduct reminds doctors that" "When adverse events occur, you have a responsibility to be open and honest in your communication with your patient, to review what has occurred and to report appropriately." More honoured in the breach rather than the observence may or may not be correct. Faced with the English concerns and the Netherlands research, an evidence based assessment of compliance with the ethical duty to disclose adverse events is warranted.