Kaye v Woods

Case [2014] ACTSC 84


ACT SUPREME COURT

Case Title:

Kaye v Woods

Medium Neutral Citation:

[2014] ACTSC 84

Hearing Date(s):

2 and 5 May 2014

DecisionDate:

8 May 2014

Before:

Murrell CJ

Decision:

Appeal be dismissed

Catchwords:

APPEAL – Appeal from interlocutory decision of Master – Proper scope of appeal from Master under s 9 of Supreme Court Act 1993 (ACT) – Considered but not decided – Grounds in appeal led respondent to believe that appeal would be in House v The King sense

APPEAL – Whether Master erred in exercise of discretion – Appellant failed to demonstrate error in Master’s decision – Appeal dismissed

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Amendments – Application by plaintiff to amend Statement of Claim five years after proceedings were commenced – Action for damages for medical negligence – Whether expert report provides evidentiary basis for proposed amendments – Trial date previously vacated

Legislation Cited:

Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act 1933 (Cth) s 8AAA

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 9

Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 21, 502, 503, 5013

Cases Cited:

Aon Risk Services Australia v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175

Balnaves v Armellin [2011] ACTSC 67

Balnaves v Armellin [2012] ACTSC 52

Draney v Barry [2002] 1 Qd R 145

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Konstruct v Arrow [2012] ACTSC 14

McKenna v Hunter & New England Local Health District [2013] NSWCA 476

Naxakis v Western General Hospital (1999) 197 CLR 269

Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479

Rothwells Ltd v Entity Group Ltd (1990) 101 FLR 460

Theodorelos v Nexus Projects Pty Ltd [2009] ACTSC 149

Category:

PRINCIPAL JUDGMENT

Decision Under Appeal:

On Appeal from the Master of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Parties:

Elise Sarah Kaye (Appellant)

Dr Kevin Woods (First Respondent)

John James Memorial Foundation Ltd ACN 008 453 469 (Second Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr A Bartley SC with Mr F Tuscano (Appellant)

Mr G Gregg (MDA National – First Respondent)

Mr D Shillington (Medical Indemnity Protection Society - First Respondent)

Ms A McCormick (Second Respondent)

Solicitors

Colquhoun Murphy (Appellant)

Ken Cush & Associates (Medical Indemnity Protection Society - First Respondent)

Sparke Helmore (MDA National - First Respondent)

Minter Ellison (Second Respondent)

File Number(s):

SC 422 of 2008

JUDGMENT

Procedural history

  1. On 23 May 2008, Elise Kaye (the appellant) commenced proceedings against Dr Woods, an orthopaedic surgeon, and the John James Memorial Hospital (the Hospital) for damages arising from Dr Woods’ treatment of the appellant in relation to an acute anterior cruciate ligament injury to the appellant’s left knee.  The appellant had been referred to Dr Woods by Dr Still.  Dr Woods undertook three operations; on 17 May 2000, 16 October 2000 and 29 May 2002.  The second and third operations were designed to address complications that arose from the first operation. 

  1. Initially, the appellant’s claim concerned alleged negligence giving rise to serious complications associated with an infection that occurred after the third operation.

  1. Discovery and interrogatories were completed by December…

Continue reading Kaye v Woods

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kaye v Woods [2014] ACTSC 84
Case
[2014] ACTSC 84
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Kaye v Woods involved a dispute between the appellant, Kaye, and the respondent, Woods, concerning medical negligence. The matter was heard initially by a Master of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, and the appellant sought to appeal the Master’s interlocutory decision. The legal issues at the heart of the appeal were whether the scope of the appeal from the Master’s decision was properly framed under section 9 of the Supreme Court Act 1993 (ACT) and whether the Master had erred in exercising their discretion in denying Kaye’s application to amend the Statement of Claim five years after the proceedings were commenced.

The court examined whether the grounds of appeal led the respondent to believe that the appeal would be in the House v The King sense, which pertains to whether the Master had erred in exercising their discretion. The court found that Kaye had not demonstrated any error in the Master's decision. The court held that Kaye had failed to provide a sufficient evidentiary basis for the proposed amendments to the Statement of Claim, which was critical given the delay in seeking these amendments and the vacated trial date.

In light of these findings, the appeal was dismissed. The court concluded that the appeal did not meet the necessary threshold and that Kaye had not successfully demonstrated that the Master’s decision was erroneous. As a result, the orders of the Master were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.