Chapmann v Caska

Chapman (appellant) appealed against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales which found him liable in negligence to Caska (respondent) for damages arising from the prescription of drugs that allegedly led to the development of avascular necrosis. The appeal also concerned the trial judge's orders regarding costs, specifically the award of indemnity costs in favour of the respondent.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in finding the appellant negligent, particularly in relation to the duty of care owed by a medical practitioner and the causal link between the prescribed medication and the respondent's condition. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the trial judge was correct in ordering indemnity costs based on the rejection of a pre-trial offer of compromise made by the appellant, and if not, what the appropriate costs order should be.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding of negligence and confirmed the verdict in favour of the respondent, finding no error in the assessment of liability or causation. However, the court found that the trial judge had erred in ordering indemnity costs. The court reasoned that while the appellant's offer of compromise was not accepted, the circumstances did not warrant an order for indemnity costs, and a party/party costs order was more appropriate for the trial. The court also made specific orders regarding the costs of the costs application and the appeal itself.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part. The verdict in favour of the respondent was confirmed, but the orders of the trial judge regarding costs were set aside. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the trial on a party/party basis. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the costs application determined on 16 March 2004, and the appellant was ordered to pay 90% of the respondent's costs of the appeal.