Glaxo Australia Pty Ltd v Wood

Glaxo Australia Pty Ltd applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia concerning a dispute with the respondent, Wood. The core of the disagreement revolved around the interpretation of "material fact" within the context of the Limitations of Actions Act.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether a second or reinforced medical opinion, or indeed any medical opinion, could constitute a "material fact" for the purposes of the Limitations of Actions Act. This question had generated conflicting judicial opinions in various Australian courts, including the Supreme Court of Queensland and the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, and there appeared to be a divergence of views within the High Court itself in prior decisions.

The applicant contended that a medical opinion, by its nature, could not be considered a material fact under the relevant legislation. The High Court noted that in a related case, *Sola Optical Australia Pty Ltd*, the existence of a medical report assessing disability was treated as a material fact, even though the plaintiff had already decided to initiate proceedings. This suggested that the existence of such a report could be considered a material fact, potentially undermining the applicant's argument. The applicant further argued that the Court of Appeal had conflated two distinct issues by considering the existence of a second, stronger medical opinion from the same doctor.