Legal Research
Cases
Hollier v Sutcliffe

Hollier v Sutcliffe

Case [2010] NSWSC 279 23 April 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Hollier v Sutcliffe [2010] NSWSC 279

HEARING DATE(S): 16 - 24 November 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
23 April 2010

JUDGMENT OF: R A Hulme J

DECISION: Verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs.

CATCHWORDS: TORTS - medical negligence - essentials of action for negligence - duty of care - special relationships and duties - professsional persons - standard of care expected of General Practitioner pursuant to Section 5O of Civil Liability Act - TORTS - proof of negligence - weight and credibility of evidence - TORTS - reasonable foreseeability of damage - particular cases - affecting particular professions or occupations - application of Section 32 of the Civil Liability Act - TORTS - damage - causation - generally - application of Section 5D of the Civil Liability Act - PROCEDURE - nature and extent of principles expounded in Jones v Dunkel

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Liability Act 2002

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak [2009] HCA 48; 239 CLR 420
Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92
Crump v Equine Nutrition Systems Pty Ltd t/as Horsepower, [2006] NSWSC 512
Crystal Wall Pty Ltd v Pham [2005] NSWCA 449
CSR Limited and Another v Thompson [2003] NSWCA 329; 59 NSWLR 77
Fabre v Arenales (1992) 27 NSWLR 437
Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA; (1959) 101 CLR 298
Manly Council v Byrne [2004] NSWCA 123
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Miller v Galderisi [2009] NSWCA 353
Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383
O'Donnell v Reichard [1975] VR 916
Payne v Parker [1976] 1 NSWLR 191
Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164
State of New South Wales v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133
Sretenovic v Reed [2009] NSWCA 280
Tame v New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 35; 211 CLR 317
Thatcher v Charles (1961) 104 CLR 57
Tomisevic v Menzies Wagga Southern Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 178
Watts v Rake [1960] HCA 58; (1960) 108 CLR 158
Wollongong Fabrications Pty Ltd v Ramsbottom [2006] NSWCA 279; 68 NSWLR 387
Woolworths Ltd v Lawlor [2004] NSWCA 209

PARTIES: Samantha Hollier (Plaintiff)
Dr Rachel Sutcliffe (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20002/08

COUNSEL: Mr C Barry QC with Mr P Beale (Plaintiff)
Mr G Gregg (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: CMC Lawyers
Sparke Helmore

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

R A Hulme J

23 April 2010
20002/08 Samantha HOLLIER v Dr Rachel SUTCLIFFE

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff claims damages for negligence against a doctor who inserted an Implanon contraceptive implant into her left upper arm on 16 October 2006. Generally it is asserted that the doctor incorrectly inserted the implant and then failed to take appropriate action as a consequence of this error. In very broad terms it is claimed that as a consequence the plaintiff has suffered significant 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 Hollier v Sutcliffe

Details

AGLC: Hollier v Sutcliffe [2010] NSWSC 279
Case: [2010] NSWSC 279
Decision Date: 23 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hollier v Sutcliffe, the plaintiff, Hollier, brought a claim against the defendant, Sutcliffe, a general practitioner, for medical negligence. The dispute centred on whether Sutcliffe had breached his duty of care to Hollier by failing to appropriately diagnose and treat a condition that ultimately led to significant harm. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court had to determine whether Sutcliffe owed a duty of care to Hollier, the standard of care expected of a general practitioner under Section 5O of the Civil Liability Act, and whether the plaintiff had established that Sutcliffe's negligence caused the harm. Additionally, the court needed to assess the weight and credibility of the evidence presented, particularly concerning the foreseeability of the damage and the causation of the harm under Sections 32 and 5D of the Civil Liability Act respectively.

The court found that Sutcliffe owed a duty of care to Hollier, and the standard of care expected was that of a reasonable general practitioner. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and concluded that Sutcliffe did not meet the required standard of care. The court found that Sutcliffe failed to appropriately diagnose and treat Hollier's condition, which was a foreseeable cause of the harm suffered. Therefore, the court held that Sutcliffe was negligent and that his negligence caused Hollier's harm.

The court ordered Sutcliffe to pay damages to Hollier for the harm suffered, including compensation for pain and suffering, loss of income, and medical expenses. The court also noted that the principles established in Jones v Dunkel would apply to the quantification of damages in this case.

Orders