Balnaves v Armellin

Case [2011] ACTSC 67

SUSAN BALNAVES v ROBERT ARMELLIN
 [2011] ACTSC 67 (5 May 2011)

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – amendment of pleading – action for damages for medical negligence – inadequate post-operative care – hearing adjourned part-heard after two days – plaintiff qualifying further expert witness – application to amend to allege negligent performance of surgery – Court Procedures Rules 2006, rr 21, 502, 503 – whether fresh cause of action – principles to be applied – application to amend refused.

Limitation Act 1985 (ACT), s16B

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 21, 75, 76, 502, 503, 514
Civil Law (Wrongs) Amendment Regulation 2004 (ACT)

Hamilton v Australian Capital Territory [2011] ACTSC 45
Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Worldwide Corporation Ltd v GTP Ltd [1998] EWCA Civ 1894
Media Ocean Ltd v Optus Mobile Pty Ltd (No 6) [2009] FCA 1319
Ginger Roger Pty Ltd v Parrella Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 128
Tran v Calvista Australia Pty Ltd [2010] ACTCA 5
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541

No.  SC 442 of 2006

Judge:             Master Harper
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              5 May 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )  No.  SC 442 of 2006
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

BETWEEN:SUSAN BALNAVES

Plaintiff

AND:ROBERT ARMELLIN

Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Master Harper
Date:  5 May 2011
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. the proceeding be reinstated.

  1. the action be listed before the Registrar or Deputy Registrar for a listing hearing with a view to fixing a date for the completion of the hearing.

  1. the plaintiff’s application dated 13 October 2009 be otherwise dismissed.

  1. the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the application.

  1. those costs not be recoverable until final orders are made in the action.

  1. The plaintiff in this action for damages for medical negligence seeks leave to make further amendments to her statement of claim, during the interrupted course of the hearing of the action.

  1. The defendant is a specialist obstetrician and gynaecologist. The plaintiff was his patient. Her claim concerns the consequences of a total abdominal hysterectomy performed by the defendant upon her at Calvary Private Hospital on 4 February 2005.

  1. The action was commenced on 8 June 2006 by originating application accompanied by statement of claim. A defence was filed later in the same month. In February 2008 the solicitors for the parties completed and signed a certificate of readiness. In April 2008 the then Deputy Registrar fixed the action for hearing on 15 July 2008. The solicitors who attended the listing hearing confirmed the estimated length of the hearing at two days.

  1. I commenced the hearing on 15 July, and devoted the available two days to it. The plaintiff was examined and cross-examined over about a day, and an expert witness called by counsel for the plaintiff, Dr McMaster-Fay, completed his oral evidence. Dr McMaster-Fay is a specialist gynaecologist, obstetrician and…

Continue reading Balnaves v Armellin

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Balnaves v Armellin [2011] ACTSC 67
Case
[2011] ACTSC 67
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Balnaves v Armellin was an action for damages brought by the plaintiff, Balnaves, against the defendant, Armellin, a surgeon, for alleged medical negligence in relation to post-operative care. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. Balnaves sought to amend his pleadings to allege that Armellin was also negligent in performing the surgery, in addition to the existing claim of negligent post-operative care. The defendant opposed the application to amend, arguing that it constituted a fresh cause of action and was therefore not permissible under the Court Procedures Rules 2006.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's proposed amendment to his pleadings constituted a fresh cause of action and was thus impermissible under the rules. The court needed to determine whether the proposed amendment related back to the original cause of action or whether it introduced new facts that required separate consideration. The court applied principles from relevant case law to assess the nature of the proposed amendment and its relation to the original cause of action.

The court found that the proposed amendment did indeed constitute a fresh cause of action as it introduced new facts and allegations that required separate consideration. The amendment related to the defendant's performance of the surgery, which was a distinct issue from the post-operative care that was the subject of the original claim. The court held that the amendment would require the defendant to prepare a separate defence to the new allegations, which would significantly alter the scope and nature of the litigation. Therefore, the court refused the plaintiff's application to amend his pleadings. The court ordered the proceeding be reinstated, the action be listed for a listing hearing, and the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. the proceeding be reinstated.

2. the action be listed before the Registrar or Deputy Registrar for a listing hearing with a view to fixing a date for the completion of the hearing.

3. the plaintiff’s application dated 13 October 2009 be otherwise dismissed.

4. the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the application.

5. those costs not be recoverable until final orders are made in the action.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.