Kilvington v Grigg

Case [2010] QDC 496


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Kilvington v Grigg & Ors [2010] QDC 496

PARTIES:

KIM THOMAS KILVINGTON

(Plaintiff)

AND

ALAN GRIGG

(First Defendant)

AND

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(Second Defendant)

AND

SRIDHAR KASHIVISHWANATH

(Third Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D52109/09

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

23 December 2010.

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8-10 November 2010

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the second and third defendants.

CATCHWORDS:

MEDICINE – Medical practitioner – duties to patient – certificate for application to superannuation fund – whether duty to provide – whether damages suffered.

Altmann v IOOF of Victoria Friendly Society [2004] QDC 5 – followed.
Appleby v Sleep [1968] 2 All ER 265 – cited.
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344 – cited.
Bonham v Carrier (2000) 21 Qld Lawyer Reps 87 –cited.
Bonham v Carrier [2002] 1 Qd R 474 – cited.
Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71 – applied.
Bunyan v Jordan (1937) 57 CLR 1 – cited.
Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge “Willemstad” (1976) 136 CLR 529 – cited.
Coomera Resort Pty Ltd v Kolback Securities Ltd [2004] 1 Qd R 1 – cited.
Fatimi Pty Ltd v Bryant (2004) 49 NSWLR 678 – applied.
Fortuna Seafoods Pty Ltd v The Ship “Eternal Wind” [2008] 1 Qd R 429 – applied.
Furniss v Fitchett [1958] NZLR 396 – considered.
Giller v Procopets (2008) 24 VR 1 – considered.
Interchase Corporation Ltd v Grosvenor Hill (Qld) Pty Ltd (No. 2) [1999] 1 Qd R 163 – cited.
Magill v Magill (2006) 226 CLR 551 – applied.
Meshlawn Pty Ltd v State of Queensland [2010] QCA 181 – cited.
O’Brien v T.F. Woollam & Sons Pty Ltd [2002] 1 Qd R 622 – cited.
O’Connor v S.P. Bray Ltd (1937) 56 CLR 464 – cited.
Pfizer Corporation v Ministry of Health [1965] 1 All ER 450 – cited.
RMC v NAN [2010] 1 Qd R 395 – followed.
Schiliro v Peppercorn Child Care Centres Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2001] 1 Qd R 518 – cited.
Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57 – distinguished.

COUNSEL:

The plaintiff appeared in person

C.J. Fitzpatrick for the second and third defendants

SOLICITORS:

The plaintiff was not represented

Corrs Chambers Westgarth Solicitors for the second and third defendants

  1. The plaintiff has a superannuation policy with AMP Ltd.  He has not worked for some time, for various reasons, but he is not entitled to be paid out the superannuation policy on the basis of age.  In 2008 the plaintiff decided he would seek to have the balance of his superannuation paid to him on the ground of permanent incapacity.  He obtained documents from AMP Ltd which indicated that such an application had to be supported by certificates from two medical practitioners dealing with issues relevant to the question of whether payment was to be made to him on this ground.  At the time, the first defendant had been his general practitioner for some years, and the…

Continue reading Kilvington v Grigg

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kilvington v Grigg [2010] QDC 496
Case
[2010] QDC 496
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Kilvington v Grigg, the plaintiff, Mr. Kilvington, brought an action against several defendants, including medical practitioners, alleging professional negligence and the failure to provide a certificate for a superannuation fund application. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff argued that the defendants' failure to provide the necessary certificate resulted in significant financial loss and distress.

The court had to determine whether the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to provide the certificate and, if so, whether the breach of that duty led to the damages claimed by the plaintiff. The court considered several precedents, including Altmann v IOOF of Victoria Friendly Society, where the duty of care was acknowledged in similar circumstances. The court also examined the cases of Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon and Breen v Williams to understand the principles of duty and causation in negligence claims.

After considering the evidence and the applicable legal principles, the court found that the defendants did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff to provide the certificate. The court reasoned that the failure to provide the certificate was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's financial loss and distress. The court relied on the precedent in Bunyan v Jordan and distinguished the case from Wilkinson v Downton. The court also applied the decision in Fatimi Pty Ltd v Bryant to conclude that the defendants' actions did not breach any duty owed to the plaintiff.

The court entered judgment in favour of the second and third defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims against them.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the second and third defendants.

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.