Coote v Kelly

In *Coote v Kelly*, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against findings of fact made by the primary judge in a negligence claim against a medical practitioner. The dispute concerned the alleged misdiagnosis of a melanoma as a plantar wart, and whether this failure to diagnose led to a breach of the practitioner's duty of care.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in making certain findings of fact, particularly concerning the plaintiff's claim that the melanoma had metastasised before the alleged failure to diagnose. The court was required to consider whether the primary judge adequately addressed inconsistencies in the evidence and whether the findings as to credibility and reliability were sufficient to resolve all the issues in dispute, especially the failure of four practitioners to observe a key element of the melanoma relied upon by the plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had failed to adequately address significant inconsistencies in the evidence and that the findings made did not resolve all the issues necessary for a just determination of the case. Specifically, the court noted the need to address why four medical practitioners had failed to observe a key element of the melanoma that the plaintiff relied upon. Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and orders of the primary judge made on 14 March 2012, and ordered a new trial.