Holcombe v Hunt - [2017] VSC 666

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

PERSONAL INJURIES LIST

S CI 2016 05197

SHANE HOLCOMBE	Plaintiff
v
ROLAND HUNT	First Defendant
NUMURKAH HOSPITAL DISTRICT HEALTH SERVICE	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Ierodiaconou AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 October 2017
DATE OF RULING:	1 November 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Holcombe v Hunt & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 666

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for an extension of time to bring an action for negligence – Plaintiff suffered injury following surgery – Alleged negligence of Medical Practitioner – Hospital – Whether limitation period should be extended in circumstances where there is a delay of approximately 13 years – Consideration of the reasons for delay and prejudice to the defendants – Whether just and reasonable to extend time – Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC (2016) 258 CLR 134, Tsiadis v Patterson (2001) 4 VR 114, Davies v Nilsen [2015] VSC 584, Bucicv Arnej Pty Ltd [2017] VSC 508 – Limitation of Actions Act 1958, ss 27K and 27L.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr A Pillay	Arnold Thomas & Becker Lawyers
For the Defendants	Mr P H Solomon QC with Mr B Jellis	Ball & Partners Minter Ellison

HER HONOUR:

Mr Holcombe is a stoic 42 year old truck driver. He has soldiered on despite a painful congenital leg condition. Sixteen years ago, Mr Holcombe had surgery on his leg. He now wishes to bring a medical negligence claim against the surgeon, Dr Hunt, and the hospital where the surgery occurred, Numurkah Hospital District Health Service (‘the hospital’). Mr Holcombe is 13 years out of time to bring his claim. The question for determination in this ruling is whether or not to extend time so as to permit Mr Holcombe to proceed with his medical negligence claim against both Dr Hunt and the hospital.

This ruling considers whether it is just and reasonable to extend time in light of a series of factors. Key amongst them are Mr Holcombe’s:

(a) long delay in bringing this proceeding against Dr Hunt and the hospital, and whether a fair trial can be had in circumstances where there will be presumptive prejudice, but no specific prejudice;

(b) deliberate decision not to take legal advice until early 2016. This decision occurred in circumstances where he was in pain immediately following the surgery and subsequently had good and bad days, received medical specialist advice that the surgery was inappropriate and was consequently angry about it, but was advised by his parents not to seek legal advice; and

(c) ignorance of the limitation of actions period until he sought legal advice in early 2016.

Factual Matrix

Mr Holcombe presented as a truthful and credible witness. He gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. He also provided affidavit evidence.[1]
[1]Affidavits of Shane Holcombe sworn 4 August and 17 October 2017.

Mr Holcombe was diagnosed with a congenital condition, Klippel-Trénaunay-Weber syndrome…

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 Holcombe v Hunt

Details

AGLC: Holcombe v Hunt [2017] VSC 666
Case: [2017] VSC 666
Decision Date: 1 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Holcombe v Hunt is an application by the plaintiff, who suffered an injury following surgery, to extend the limitation period for bringing a claim in negligence against the medical practitioner and hospital involved. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff's action for damages for personal injury caused by negligence was time-barred by the Limitation of Actions Act 1958, with a delay of approximately 13 years since the surgery. The plaintiff sought an extension of time under sections 27K and 27L of the Act.

The central legal issue before the court was whether it was just and reasonable to extend the limitation period. This required consideration of the reasons for the delay, the prejudice to the defendants if the period were extended, and the relevant statutory provisions. The court assessed the plaintiff's reasons for not discovering the injury sooner, the impact of the delay on the defendants' ability to defend the action, and the potential for injustice if the claim were not allowed. The court referenced several precedents, including Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC, Tsiadis v Patterson, Davies v Nilsen, and Bucic v Arnej Pty Ltd, to understand the principles applicable to the extension of limitation periods.

The court found that the delay was not inordinately long and that the plaintiff's reasons for the delay were significant and credible. The court also determined that there was no substantial prejudice to the defendants, as the plaintiff had taken steps to mitigate the impact of the delay. The court concluded that it was just and reasonable to extend the limitation period, allowing the plaintiff's action to proceed. The court's decision balanced the need to prevent the abuse of legal process with the importance of allowing meritorious claims to be pursued. The plaintiff's application for an extension of time was granted.

Orders