Dean v Phung

Case [2009] NSWSC 1333


CITATION: Dean v Phung [2009] NSWSC 1333
HEARING DATE(S): 25 March 2009, 26 March 2009, 27 March 2009
 
JUDGMENT DATE : 

2 December 2009
JUDGMENT OF: Johnson J at 1
DECISION: See [7].
CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - claim by patient against dentist - negligent treatment - admission of liability
LEGISLATION CITED: Limitation Act 1969
CATEGORY: Principal judgment
CASES CITED: Dean v Phung [2009] NSWSC 201
Advanced Arbor Services Pty Ltd v Mark Phung [2009] NSWSC 1331
PARTIES: Todd Owen Dean (Plaintiff)
Mark Phung (Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20571/08
COUNSEL: Mr D Hooke (Plaintiff)
Mr D Nock SC; Mr A Hourigan (Defendant)
SOLICITORS: Beilby Poulden Costello (Plaintiff)
Guild Legal Limited (Defendant)

      IN THE SUPREME COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES
      COMMON LAW DIVISION
      PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE LIST

      Johnson J

      2 December 2009

      20571/08 Todd Owen Dean v Mark Phung

      JUDGMENT

1 JOHNSON J: By Statement of Claim filed 18 December 2008, the Plaintiff, Todd Owen Dean, sues the Defendant, Mark Phung, a dental practitioner, for damages for professional negligence.

2 The Statement of Claim alleges that the Plaintiff suffered injuries to his teeth and jaw on 19 December 2001 when he was struck on the chin by a log in the course of his employment. It is alleged that the Plaintiff was referred to the Defendant for dental and related treatment and advice for the injury. On 16 January 2002, the Plaintiff first attended the Defendant’s dental surgery and, until July 2003, the Defendant provided treatment to the Plaintiff. It is alleged that the Defendant’s treatment of the Plaintiff was negligent and that the Plaintiff has suffered injury and loss as a result of that negligence.

3 On 11 March 2009, Hall J ordered that the issue of liability in these proceedings be tried at the same time as a related matter, Advanced Arbor Services Pty Ltd v Mark Phung (20006/08): Dean v Phung [2009] NSWSC 201.

4 On 25 March 2009, both matters came before me for hearing. This judgment should be read in conjunction with my judgment delivered today in Advanced Arbor Services Pty Ltd v Mark Phung [2009] NSWSC 1331.

5 At the hearing on 26 March 2009, senior counsel for the Defendant stated that he had “instructions to consent to a judgment in respect of liability” in this case (T98). By leave, the Defendant filed in Court an Amended Defence dated 26 March 2009 in this matter (T111). The effect of those amendments was that the Defendant admitted liability for negligence, but with an outstanding issue under the Limitation Act 1969.

6 In these circumstances, it was agreed by counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendant that this matter should be listed for directions when judgment was handed down in the related proceedings (T112; T123).

7 Accordingly, I will list the proceedings for directions and for any application as to costs with respect to the hearing before me.

      **********
Details
AGLC
Dean v Phung [2009] NSWSC 1333
Case
[2009] NSWSC 1333
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dean v Phung involved a patient, Dean, who brought a claim against a dentist, Phung, for negligent treatment. The dispute centred on whether Phung was negligent in his treatment of Dean, which resulted in significant harm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether Phung breached his duty of care to Dean and whether this breach caused the harm suffered by Dean. The court had to consider the standard of care expected of a dentist and whether Phung's actions fell below this standard. Furthermore, the court needed to determine whether there was a direct causal link between Phung's alleged negligence and the harm Dean experienced.

In examining these issues, the court found that Phung admitted to liability for the negligence. This admission was critical, as it shifted the focus from liability to the quantification of damages. The court accepted that Phung's treatment of Dean was indeed negligent and that this negligence directly caused the harm Dean suffered. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Dean, awarding damages for the injuries sustained. The court's decision was grounded in the clear admission of liability and the evident causal link between Phung's treatment and Dean's harm.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.