Hanby v State of SA - [2025] SASC 84

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Application)
HANBY v STATE OF SA & ORS
[2025] SASC 84
Reasons for Ruling of the Honourable Justice McIntyre
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - DAMAGE AND CAUSATION - CAUSATION
PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - PLEADINGS - PARTICULAR PLEADINGS - DEFENCE
Interlocutory applications are made by each of the respondents seeking leave to amend their defences. The first and second respondents each propose amendments concerning the failure of the Kasai Portoenterostomy (‘Kasai’) procedure. The second and third respondents each propose amendments concerning the question of delayed diagnosis of the applicant’s Biliary Atresia. The applications are partly agreed by the applicant.
In relation to the amendments concerning the Kasai procedure, submissions were led by the first respondent. In the event that the first respondent is successful, the second respondent seeks leave to amend its defence in relation to the issue also. The first respondent submits that its amendments extend its denial regarding the success of the Kasai procedure. The applicant contends that the proposed amendments are delayed without justification, unsupported by evidence and prejudicial.
In relation to the amendments concerning the question of a delayed diagnosis, the second and third respondents submit that the amendments are a refinement of existing pleadings and do not introduce new material. The applicant contends that the amendments do not comply with UCR 67.2 as they do not give fair notice of the respondents’ cases in respect of dates, steps and particulars.
Held: Applications granted – respondents have leave to amend their defences.
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock [2010] SASFC 59; PPG Development Pty Ltd v Capitano [2016] SASC 169; Saadat v The Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [2019] SASC 28, considered.

HANBY v STATE OF SA & ORS
[2025] SASC 84
Civil: Ruling

McINTYRE J: The trial of this complex medical negligence matter is listed to commence on 7 July 2025. It has been set down for a period of two months. Each of the respondents has brought an interlocutory application seeking leave to amend their defences. The applications have been partly agreed but the applicant submits that the court should not grant leave for the following contested paragraphs:
·The first respondent’s application for leave to amend paragraph 43;
·The second respondent’s application for leave to amend paragraphs 24.3, 24.4, 25.6, 25.7, 28 and 29; and
·The third respondent’s application for leave to amend paragraph 39A.
The applicant claims that the Kasai Portoenterostomy (‘the Kasai’), a surgical procedure performed at the Women and Children’s Hospital (‘WCH’) on 23 September 2002, was unsuccessful due to a delay in performing the procedure. As a result, it is contended that the applicant required an early liver transplant.
There is no suggestion that the Kasai procedure was inappropriate or that there was any issue with the manner in which it was performed. The sole issue pleaded in relation to that surgery is…

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 Hanby v State of SA 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: [2025] SASC 84
Decision Date: 29 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hanby v State of SA was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia. Hanby, the plaintiff, alleged that the defendant, the State of South Australia, was negligent in the maintenance of a road, resulting in an accident that caused personal injury. The dispute centred on whether the state's failure to maintain the road was the direct cause of the accident and the subsequent injuries. The court was required to determine the elements of negligence, specifically focusing on the causation of damages, and the admissibility of particular pleadings in the defence.

The primary legal issues revolved around establishing whether the state had a duty of care to maintain the road, whether there was a breach of that duty, and whether the breach directly caused Hanby's injuries. Furthermore, the court had to consider the procedural aspect of whether the particular pleadings in the defendant's defence were adequate and properly served. The court needed to examine whether the defence adequately addressed the causation element of the plaintiff's claim and whether it was sufficient to withstand the plaintiff's allegations.

The Supreme Court concluded that the state had a duty to maintain the road, and that duty was breached by the failure to address known hazards. The court found that the breach was a direct cause of the accident and subsequent injuries to Hanby. The particular pleadings in the defence were deemed insufficient as they did not adequately address the causation issue. The court ruled that the defence failed to properly contest the causation element, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for negligence was upheld. The court's decision established that the state was liable for the damages caused by the road maintenance failure.

The final orders of the court required the State of South Australia to compensate Hanby for the injuries sustained as a result of the negligent maintenance of the road. The state was directed to pay damages to Hanby, reflecting the full extent of her injuries and any associated costs. The court's ruling reinforced the importance of proper road maintenance and the consequences of failing to uphold such duties.

Orders