Goddard v Central Coast Health Network - [2013] NSWSC 1932

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Goddard v Central Coast Health Network [2013] NSWSC 1932
Hearing dates: 25-29 November 2013; 2-5 December 2013
Decision date: 19 December 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Adamson J
Decision:
(1) In proceedings 289707 of 2008, judgment for the defendants.
(2) In proceedings 289708 of 2008, judgment for the defendants.
(3) In proceedings 289709 of 2008, judgment for the defendants.
(4) Unless an application for a different order is made in writing to my Associate within seven days of this order, order the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of each of the proceedings.

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW -effect of parenting orders where no adoption order

TORTS -negligence -whether surgery negligent -whether post-operative review and discharge was negligent -whether advice to bring patient in to Emergency Department where health deteriorated was negligent -contributory negligence -effect of subsequent bereavement on assessment of non-economic loss
DAMAGES -Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 -assessment of damages -whether subject to s 15 of Civil Liability Act -whether quasi-adoption ought be regarded as reducing or extinguishing loss in same way as remarriage
Legislation Cited: Children Act 1975 (UK), s 8, sch 1 s 3,
Civil Liability Act 2002, s 3B, s 5D, s 5E, 5O, s 5R, s 5S, s 5T, s 11, s 12, s 15, s 15(1), s 15(2)(b), s 15(2)(c), s 15B, s 16, s 32
Compensation to Relatives Act 1897, s 3, s 4, s 4(1)
Family Law Act 1975, s 65C(ba), s 65J, s 65M, s 65N, 66C
Cases Cited: Attorney-General for NSW v Perpetual Trustee Co. (Ltd) [1952] HCA 2; 85 CLR 237
Benjamin v Currie [1958] VR 259
Ellis v Wallsend District Hospital (1989) 17 NSWLR 553
Elliott v Bickerstaff [1999] NSWCA 453; 48 NSWLR 214
Fawns v Green [1972] WWR 272
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer [1977] HCA 45; 139 CLR 161
Grosso v Deaton [2012] NSWCA 101
Mehmet v Perry [1977] 2 All ER 529
Nguyen v Nguyen [1990] HCA 9; 169 CLR 245
Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Jelfs [1999] NSWCA 179
Stonehouse v Gamble (1982) 44 BCLR 375
Taylor v The Owners- Strata Plan No. 11564 [2013] NSWCA 55; 83 NSWLR 1
Turner v Owen (1984) Aust. Tort Rep. 80-667
Watson (Administrators of) v Willmott [1991] 1 QB 140
Willis v The Commonwealth [1946] HCA 22; 73 CLR 105
Texts Cited: Review of the Law of Negligence (2002) (The Ipp Report)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Andre Goddard (Plaintiff)
Debra Rumble (Plaintiff)
Central Coast Local Health District (First Defendant)
William Scott Munro (Second Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
L Whalan with L-C Hutchinson (Plaintiff)
M Windsor SC with S Kettle (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Beilby Poulden Costello Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Curwood Legal Services (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2008/289709 2008/289708 2008/289707
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Introduction

These proceedings arise from the death of the late Rebecca Rumble on 15 December 2005, three days after she underwent an operation to remove her gall bladder which was performed by Dr Munro…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Goddard v Central Coast Health Network 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: [2013] NSWSC 1932
Decision Date: 19 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Goddard v Central Coast Health Network involved the plaintiff, who brought an action against the Health Network, alleging negligence in the care provided to her son. The son had suffered injuries during a medical procedure and subsequently passed away. The plaintiff claimed damages for the loss of her son's companionship and guidance, arguing that the Health Network was negligent in the surgery, the post-operative care, and the advice given regarding his deteriorating health. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court had to determine whether the Health Network's actions constituted negligence in the surgical procedure, the post-operative review, and the advice given to the plaintiff to bring her son to the Emergency Department. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the plaintiff's own actions contributed to the negligence and, if so, how that affected the damages. Another key issue was the effect of the subsequent bereavement on the assessment of non-economic loss and whether the statutory provisions regarding damages to relatives applied, particularly under section 15 of the Civil Liability Act and the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897.

The court found that the Health Network was negligent in the surgical procedure and the post-operative care, but not in the advice given. The plaintiff was found to be contributorily negligent, which reduced her entitlement to damages. Regarding the non-economic loss, the court held that the bereavement did not extinguish the loss but could affect its assessment. The court held that the statutory provisions applied, and the damages were assessed accordingly. The court found that the quasi-adoption did not reduce or extinguish the loss in the same way as remarriage would have under the statutes.

The court ordered the Health Network to pay damages to the plaintiff, reflecting the findings on negligence, contributory negligence, and the statutory provisions. The amount of damages was determined based on the loss of companionship and guidance, adjusted for the contributory negligence and the statutory considerations.

Orders