Dr Ibrahim v Arkell

Dr Ibrahim (the appellant) appealed a decision of the District Court of New South Wales concerning allegations of medical negligence brought by Arkell (the respondent). The dispute arose from a haemorrhoidectomy performed on the respondent, where it was alleged that the appellant failed to adequately warn the respondent of the risk, or increased risk, of anal stenosis, particularly given the respondent's possible pre-existing ulcerative colitis.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appellant had breached his duty of care to the respondent by failing to provide sufficient information regarding the risks associated with the haemorrhoidectomy. Specifically, the court considered the scope of a medical practitioner's duty to warn a patient of material risks, and how this duty is informed by the patient's right to make informed decisions about their own medical treatment.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the high duty owed by medical practitioners to inform competent patients of material risks, a duty rooted in the fundamental policy of enabling individuals to make autonomous decisions regarding their bodies and lives. The court found that the appellant's failure to adequately warn the respondent of the risk of anal stenosis, especially in light of the potential presence of ulcerative colitis which could exacerbate this risk, constituted a breach of that duty. The court applied established principles of medical negligence, focusing on the materiality of the risk and the patient's right to informed consent.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the finding of negligence against Dr Ibrahim.