Goodridge v Baker - [2023] VSC 331

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
PERSONAL INJURIES LIST

S ECI 2022 000420

BETWEEN:

ADAM GOODRIDGE	First Plaintiff
MICHELLE GOODRIDGE	Second Plaintiff
v
GEOFFREY BAKER	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Ierodiaconou AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 and 23 March 2023
DATE OF RULING:	16 June 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Goodridge & Anor v Baker
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 331

---

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – Personal injury – Alleged medical negligence – Application for extension of time during which action may be brought – Delay – Delay between accrual of cause of action and application – Reasons for delay – Prejudice – Whether time ought be extended pursuant to s 27K of the Limitations of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) – Application granted – Azzam v Commonwealth [2019] VSC 484 – Tucker v Barwon Health & Anor [2008] VSC 229 – Tsiadis v Patterson [2001] VSCA 138.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr C Winneke KC with Ms A De Souza	Slater & Gordon Ltd
For the Defendant	Dr S L Keeling	Gilchrist Connell Pty Ltd

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Evidence............................................................................................................................................... 1

Background......................................................................................................................................... 2

Claims by Mr and Ms Goodridge............................................................................................... 2
Dr Baker’s defence to the Goodridges’ claim............................................................................ 3
4 July 1996 antenatal ultrasound film........................................................................................ 4

Applicable principles........................................................................................................................ 5

Submissions...................................................................................................................................... 10

Analysis.............................................................................................................................................. 11

Time within which cause of action was discoverable; limitation period........................... 11
Length and reason for delay on part of Mr and Ms Goodridge........................................... 15
Nature and extent of loss........................................................................................................... 28
Prejudice to Dr Baker; whether a fair trial can be held.......................................................... 28
Submissions of Dr Baker................................................................................................... 28
Submissions of Mr and Ms Goodridge........................................................................... 29
Analysis............................................................................................................................... 30

Duration of any disability or legal incapacity of Mr or Ms Goodridge arising on or after date of discoverability.................................................................................................................... 33
Extent to which Mr and Ms Goodridge acted promptly and reasonably once aware Dr Baker’s alleged act or omission might give rise to action for damages................................... 33
Steps taken by Mr and Ms Goodridge to obtain medical, legal or other expert advice, and the nature of the advice received........................................................................................... 34
Synthesising competing considerations.................................................................................. 34

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 35

HER HONOUR:

Mr Goodridge, a young adult, was born by emergency caesarean section. He says that due to birth asphyxia, he has cerebral palsy. Mr Goodridge, and his mother, allege that the treating obstetrician was negligent. They allege the obstetrician negligently failed to arrange for birth by elective caesarean section about 12 days earlier. They say he was in possession of a scan showing Mr Goodridge to be in a breech position. The obstetrician, now retired, denies he acted negligently. Further, he says that the allegations relate to events in 1996, which he does not recall, and that a fair trial cannot now be held. The issue for determination in this ruling is whether time ought to be extended pursuant to s 27K of the Limitations of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) (‘LAA’).

Evidence

Mr Goodridge, and his mother, Ms Goodridge, are the first and…

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.

Continue reading Goodridge v Baker

Details

AGLC: Goodridge v Baker [2023] VSC 331
Case: [2023] VSC 331
Decision Date: 16 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of Goodridge v Baker concerned a claim of medical negligence resulting in personal injury. The plaintiff, Goodridge, sought an extension of the time limit for bringing the action due to delay in initiating proceedings. The defendant, Baker, opposed the extension, arguing that the delay was unreasonable and would cause prejudice. The court was required to decide whether the extension should be granted under section 27K of the Limitations of Actions Act 1958 (Vic), which allows for extensions in certain circumstances.

The court examined the reasons for the delay and the potential prejudice to the defendant. It considered previous cases such as Azzam v Commonwealth, Tucker v Barwon Health & Anor, and Tsiadis v Patterson, which provided guidance on the application of section 27K. The court weighed the balance of convenience, taking into account the delay between the accrual of the cause of action and the application for the extension, the reasons for the delay, and any prejudice to the defendant. After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that the extension should be granted.

The court found that the delay was not unreasonable given the circumstances and that the prejudice to the defendant was not significant enough to outweigh the balance of convenience. The application for an extension of time was therefore granted, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with their claim of medical negligence. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant legal principles and the specific facts of the case.

Orders