Lowther v Brisbane South Regional Health Authority

The case of Lowther v Brisbane South Regional Health Authority involved the plaintiff, Ronald Charles Lowther, who sought damages for personal injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the defendants, the Brisbane South Regional Health Authority and Dr. Peter Heathcote. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were negligent in not providing antibiotic cover during a urodynamics test conducted on 12 December 1990, resulting in a subsequent infection and right orchidectomy. The defendants opposed the plaintiff's application for leave to take fresh proceedings under Order 90 Rule 9. The court had to consider whether the plaintiff had discharged the onus of showing good reason for exempting the proceeding from the general prohibition imposed by Order 90 Rule 9. The court found that the plaintiff had not satisfactorily explained the delay in delivering the statement of claim and that the delay had caused prejudice to the defendants. Furthermore, the plaintiff had failed to provide evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities a causal nexus between the urodynamics test and the subsequent alleged infection. Therefore, the court dismissed the application and denied the plaintiff leave to take fresh proceedings.