24 June-19 July, 5-6 November, 16-17 December 2024
Date of orders:
8 September 2025
Decision date:
08 September 2025
Jurisdiction:
Common Law
Before:
Weinstein J
Decision:
(1) Verdict and judgment for the defendant;
(2) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis unless a party is able to demonstrate an entitlement for some other costs order;
(3) Liberty to apply on seven (7) days notice if further or other orders are required, including as to costs; and
(4) The exhibits and subpoenaed material are to be returned forthwith. Any exhibits returned must be retained intact by the party or person who produced that material until the expiry of the time to file an appeal or until any appeal has been determined.
Catchwords:
NEGLIGENCE — Breach — Standard of care — Medical negligence — Whether spinal surgery ought to have been performed — Whether spinal surgery performed negligently
NEGLIGENCE — Causation — Medical negligence — Whether lower back pain caused by spinal surgery
LIMITATION OF ACTION — Claim in negligence — Where time expired — Whether extension of time should be granted — Where defendant suffered both actual and presumptive prejudice
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Briggs v Hillier
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Briggs v Hillier [2025] NSWSC 1021
Case
[2025] NSWSC 1021
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Briggs v Hillier, the plaintiff, Briggs, sought compensation from the defendant, Hillier, for alleged medical negligence during spinal surgery. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant failed to perform the surgery in accordance with the standard of care expected of a medical practitioner and that the surgery caused the plaintiff's lower back pain. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant was negligent in not performing the spinal surgery and whether the surgery caused the plaintiff's lower back pain. Additionally, the court considered whether an extension of the time limit to bring the claim should be granted.
The court determined that the defendant was not negligent in not performing the spinal surgery, as the evidence did not establish that the surgery was necessary. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff's lower back pain was not caused by the surgery. The court also held that an extension of the time limit to bring the claim should not be granted, as the defendant had suffered both actual and presumptive prejudice due to the delay in bringing the proceedings. The plaintiff's claim was therefore dismissed.