Fuller v Australian Capital Territory

Link copied
Case Copied 78 min read

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:

Fuller v Australian Capital Territory

Citation: 

[2024] ACTCA 19

Hearing Date: 

22 August 2023

Decision Date: 

5 July 2024

Before:

McCallum CJ, Baker and Taylor JJ

Decision: 

(1)    The appeal is allowed. 

(2)    Set aside the orders made on 22 December 2022.

(3)    In lieu thereof, order that judgment be entered for the appellant.

(4)    Remit the proceedings to the Supreme Court for an assessment of damages on the basis that the scope of liability includes radiculopathy.

Catchwords: 

APPEAL – NEGLIGENCE – Medical Negligence – Appeal from the Supreme Court – anaesthetist – where a spinal needle used to administer spinal anaesthetic in a planned caesarean section broke – whether the primary judge erred in relying on a witness’ evidence to make certain factual findings – whether the spinal needle should have been replaced before further attempts – whether the primary judge erroneously applied s 5O of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) – whether the failed administration of the anaesthetic caused the appellant’s injuries – assessment of the primary judge’s factual findings – consideration of the primary judge’s use of the expert evidence – appeal allowed – matter remitted to the Supreme Court for assessment of damages

Legislation Cited: 

Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), ss 42, 43, 44

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5O

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 37E

Cases Cited: 

Austen v Tran [2023] ACTCA 44

Australian Capital Territory v Crowley [2012] ACTCA 52; 7 ACTLR 142

Cornwall v Jenkins as Trustee for the iSpin Family Trust [2020] ACTCA 2; 15 ACTLR 233

DeVries v Australian National Railways Commission [1993] HCA 78; 177 CLR 472

Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118

Fuller v Australian Capital Territory [2022] ACTSC 361

Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; 101 CLR 298

Rogers v Whitaker [1992] HCA 58; 175 CLR 479

Rosenberg v Percival [2001] HCA 18; 205 CLR 434

Sydney Water Corporation v Turano [2009] HCA 42; 239 CLR 51

Warren v Coombes [1979] HCA 9; 142 CLR 531

Waugh v Kippen [1986] HCA 12; 160 CLR 156

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12; 146 CLR 40

Parties: 

Bronwyn Fuller (Appellant)

Australian Capital Territory (Respondent)

Representation: 

Counsel

R McIlwaine SC with D Richards (Appellant)

M Fordham SC with S McCarthy (Respondent)

Solicitors

United Legal (Appellant)

ACT Government Solicitor (Respondent)

File Number:

ACTCA 4 of 2023

Decision Under Appeal: 

Court:  ACT Supreme Court

Before:   Robinson AJ

Date of Decision:        22 December 2022

Case Title:  Fuller v Australian Capital Territory

Citation:  [2022] ACTSC 361

Court File Number:     SC 299 of 2021

THE COURT:

Introduction

1․On 14 February 2020, the appellant, Bronwyn Fuller, was administered spinal anaesthetic for the purposes of a planned caesarean section at The Canberra Hospital.  During the procedure, the spinal needle being used to administer the anaesthetic broke into two pieces, with one piece remaining in the appellant’s…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Fuller v Australian Capital Territory and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2024] ACTCA 19
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Fuller v Australian Capital Territory* concerned a claim of medical negligence brought by the appellant against the respondent. The dispute arose from a planned caesarean section during which a spinal needle used to administer spinal anaesthetic broke. The appellant alleged that the anaesthetist's actions constituted negligence, leading to her injuries. The appeal was heard by McCallum CJ, Baker and Taylor JJ.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge had erred in making certain factual findings, particularly in reliance on a witness's evidence, and whether the spinal needle should have been replaced before further attempts at anaesthetic administration. Furthermore, the court considered whether the primary judge had erroneously applied section 5O of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW) and whether the failed administration of the anaesthetic had caused the appellant's injuries. The appeal also involved a review of the primary judge's assessment of factual findings and the use of expert evidence.

The appellate court allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous orders. The court found that the primary judge had erred in their assessment of the evidence and application of the law. Consequently, judgment was entered for the appellant. The proceedings were remitted to the Supreme Court for an assessment of damages, with the scope of liability to include radiculopathy.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The appeal is allowed.

(2) Set aside the orders made on 22 December 2022.

(3) In lieu thereof, order that judgment be entered for the appellant.

(4) Remit the proceedings to the Supreme Court for an assessment of damages on the basis that the scope of liability includes radiculopathy.

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.