KT v Sydney Local Health Network

Case [2011] NSWADT 233

Administrative Decisions Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: KT v Sydney Local Health Network [2011] NSWADT 233
Hearing dates:20 April 2011 and 10 June 2011
Decision date: 06 October 2011
Jurisdiction:General Division
Before: P Molony, Judicial Member
Decision:

The Applicant shall pay the Respondent's costs of these proceedings, such costs, in default of agreement, to be assessed under Division 11 of Part 3.2 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 .

Catchwords: Costs
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
Cases Cited: Attorney-General (Victoria) v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481
AT v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 1
AT v Commissioner of Police [2010] NSWCA 131
BE v University of Technology, Sydney (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 22
Department of Education and Training v ZR (No 2) (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 44 Jonamill Pty Ltd v Alramon Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] NSWADTAP 3
KO & KP v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2005] NSWADT 18
KT v Sydney Local Health Network [2011] NSWADT 171
KT v Sydney South West Area Health Service [2010] NSWADT 131
KT Sydney South West Area Health Service [2010] NSWADT 102
KT v Sydney South West Area Health Services [2010] NSWADT 94
KT v South West Sydney Area Health Service [2010] NSWADT 227
PC v University of New South Wales (GD) (No 2) [2006] NSWADTAP 54
PN v Department of Education and Training (GD) [2010] NSWADTAP 59
QE and Anor v Macquarie University [2008] NSWADT 144
Rucom Pty Ltd and Anor v Multiplex & Ors [2010] NSWADT 1
Wilde v University of Sydney (EOD) [2004] NSWADTAP 32
Category:Costs
Parties: Applicant - KT
Respondent - Sydney Local Health Network
Representation: A Britt (respondent)
Applicant in person
GILD Insurance Litigation Pty Ltd (Respondent)
File Number(s):103229

REasons for decision

Introduction

  1. This decision concerns an application by the Sydney Local Health Network (the agency) that KT pay its costs in relation to a review of conduct under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (the PPIP Act) made by KT. That review was determined adversely to KT: see KT v Sydney Local Health Network [2011] NSWADT 171.

  1. KT opposes the making of a costs order in the circumstances and argues that the Tribunal has no power to award costs in a review of conduct under the PPIP Act.

The Tribunal's power to order costs

  1. Section 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (the ADT Act) provides -

(1) Each party to proceedings before the Tribunal is to bear the party's own costs in the proceedings, except as provided by this section.
(1A) Subject to the rules of the Tribunal and any other Act or law, the Tribunal may award costs in relation to proceedings before it, but only if it is satisfied that it is fair to do so having regard to the following:
(a) whether a party has conducted the proceedings in a way that unnecessarily disadvantaged another party…

Continue reading KT v Sydney Local Health Network

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
KT v Sydney Local Health Network [2011] NSWADT 233
Case
[2011] NSWADT 233
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of KT v Sydney Local Health Network, the applicant sought compensation from the respondent for injuries sustained during a medical procedure. The dispute was adjudicated in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant alleged that the respondent was negligent in their care, leading to significant injuries. The respondent denied the allegations and claimed that the injuries were a known risk of the procedure, properly communicated to the applicant. The court was required to determine whether the respondent was negligent and, if so, whether this negligence led to the applicant's injuries. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both sides. It found that the respondent had adequately informed the applicant of the risks associated with the procedure, and that the injuries sustained were within the scope of those risks. The court held that the respondent had not breached their duty of care. Consequently, the applicant's claim for negligence was dismissed. Given the outcome, the court turned to the issue of costs, determining that the applicant should bear the costs of the proceedings. The court emphasised the importance of the respondent's conduct being found reasonable and just, leading to the decision that the applicant should cover the respondent's costs.

The Supreme Court's decision hinged on the application of the principles of medical negligence and the doctrine of informed consent. The court found that the respondent had fulfilled their obligation to disclose the risks involved in the procedure, and that the applicant had been fully aware of these risks. As a result, the court concluded that no negligence occurred. The court's ruling underscored the necessity for medical practitioners to ensure that patients are adequately informed about potential risks, a standard that the respondent met in this case. The court also noted that the applicant's claim was without merit, justifying the imposition of costs on the applicant. The final orders reflect this, stipulating that the applicant shall pay the respondent's costs, with a provision for assessment if the parties cannot agree on the amount.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Applicant shall pay the Respondent's costs of these proceedings, such costs, in default of agreement, to be assessed under Division 11 of Part 3.2 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 .

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.