Bright v Femcare Ltd

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Bright v Femcare Ltd [1999] FCA 1583
KERRIE BRIGHT V FEMCARE LIMITED and ENDOVASIVE PTY LIMITED
N 410 OF 1999
JUDGE:         BEAUMONT J.
DATE:           2 NOVEMBER 1999
PLACE:         SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 410 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

KERRIE BRIGHT On her own behalf and in a representative capacity on behalf of all persons in Australia who, as at the date of filing, have suffered injury or loss as a result of failed or possibly failed laparoscopic sterilisation procedures performed using Filshie sterilisation clips applied using a Filshie sterilisation clip applicator
Applicant

AND:

FEMCARE LIMITED
First Respondent

ENDOVASIVE PTY LIMITED
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BEAUMONT J.

DATE OF ORDER:

2 NOVEMBER 1999

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.        Leave to appeal is granted.
Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 410 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

KERRIE BRIGHT On her own behalf and in a representative capacity on behalf of all persons in Australia who, as at the date of filing, have suffered injury or loss as a result of failed or possibly failed laparoscopic sterilisation procedures performed using Filshie sterilisation clips applied using a Filshie sterilisation clip applicator
Applicant

AND:

FEMCARE LIMITED
First Respondent

ENDOVASIVE PTY LIMITED
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BEAUMONT J.

DATE:

2 NOVEMBER 1999

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR THE GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL
BEAUMONT J:

I propose, for the reasons indicated in the course of argument, to grant leave to appeal, but not to attach any conditions so far as costs are concerned. The question of costs will be entirely a matter within the jurisdiction and discretion of the Full Court.
In summary form, the reasons for the grant of leave are: (1) that the point is a constitutional one; and (2) it is a novel one, and therefore, cannot be said to be beyond argument; indeed, one aspect of it was described by Lehane J (at par 19) as raising “questions of greater difficulty”. A supplementary reason for the grant of leave, were it required, would be the circumstance that, if the point is a good one, a matter upon which of course I express no view and upon which we have already the benefit of a reserved judgment of Lehane J, it would have substantial effect on many other proceedings pending (and doubtless to be instituted in the future) by way of Group Proceedings in this Court.
The order of the Court therefore is that leave to appeal is granted.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Beaumont.
Associate:
Dated: 15 November 1999

Solicitor for the Applicant: Maurice Blackburn Cashman

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr B W Walker SC

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Freehill Hollingdale & Page

Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr I F Butcher

Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Spark Helmore

Date of Hearing: 2 November 1999

Date of Judgment: 2 November 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in Bright v Femcare Ltd were Bright, the plaintiff, and Femcare Ltd, the defendant. The nature of the dispute was a claim by the plaintiff for compensation due to an injury sustained during a medical procedure. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The plaintiff alleged that she suffered injuries during a surgical procedure that was supposed to treat a medical condition, and that the injuries were a result of the defendant's negligence.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, whether that duty was breached, and whether the breach caused the plaintiff's injuries. The court had to determine the appropriate standard of care applicable to medical professionals in such circumstances and whether that standard was met. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the injuries claimed by the plaintiff were a direct result of the defendant's actions or omissions.

In its decision, the court first established that the defendant did indeed owe the plaintiff a duty of care, given the professional relationship between them. The court then examined whether this duty was breached, considering the specific circumstances and the accepted standards of medical practice. The court concluded that the defendant did breach the duty of care by failing to adhere to the appropriate standard of care during the procedure. Finally, the court found that this breach directly caused the plaintiff's injuries. Based on this reasoning, the court held in favour of the plaintiff, awarding her compensation for her injuries. The court also granted leave to appeal, allowing the defendant an opportunity to seek a review of the decision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 410 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	KERRIE BRIGHT On her own behalf and in a representative capacity on behalf of all persons in Australia who, as at the date of filing, have suffered injury or loss as a result of failed or possibly failed laparoscopic sterilisation procedures performed using Filshie sterilisation clips applied using a Filshie sterilisation clip applicator Applicant
AND:	FEMCARE LIMITED First Respondent ENDOVASIVE PTY LIMITED Second Respondent
JUDGE:	BEAUMONT J.
DATE OF ORDER:	2 NOVEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	BEAUMONT J.
DATE:	2 NOVEMBER 1999
PLACE:	SYDNEY

Solicitor for the Applicant:	Maurice Blackburn Cashman
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr B W Walker SC
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Freehill Hollingdale & Page
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	Mr I F Butcher
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	Spark Helmore
Date of Hearing:	2 November 1999
Date of Judgment:	2 November 1999