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 | |
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
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.
Initially, the appellant’s claim concerned alleged negligence giving rise to serious complications associated with an infection that occurred after the third operation.
Discovery and interrogatories were completed by December…
Continue reading Kaye v Woods
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Kaye v Woods [2014] ACTSC 84
- Case
- [2014] ACTSC 84
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.