Mather v Minister for Health - [2004] WADC 46

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: MATHER -v- MINISTER FOR HEALTH [2004] WADC 46

CORAM: FRENCH DCJ

HEARD: 3-4 FEBRUARY 2004

DELIVERED : 4 FEBRUARY 2004

PUBLISHED : 12 MARCH 2004

FILE NO/S: CIV 1835 of 2001

BETWEEN: LIAM MICHAEL PAUL MATHER
Plaintiff
AND
MINISTER FOR HEALTH
Defendant

Catchwords:

Negligence - Breach of statutory duty - Personal injuries - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Occupiers' Liability Act 1985, s 5

Result:

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: In person
Defendant: Mr P D Quinlan

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: In person
Defendant: Blake Dawson Waldron

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

McLachlan v Purchas & Ors, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980749; 21 December 1998

Case(s) also cited:

Albrighton v Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (1980) 2 NSWLR 542
Gondoline Pty Ltd v Hansford [2002] WASCA 214
Ryan v Electricity Trust of South Australia (No 1) (1987) 47 SASR 220

FRENCH DCJ: The plaintiff is a 50 year old man who is seeking damages from the defendant for injuries he says he received as a result of a fall at premises occupied by the defendant on 5 August 2000. Prior to that fall he had been involved in a number of other accidents including motor vehicle accidents. In 1993 he sustained a fracture of the right femur which was again fractured following a further accident in 1985. As a consequence of those accidents the plaintiff was left with a deformity in his right leg. In 1997 he was knocked off a bicycle by a motor vehicle and subsequently suffered from recurrent dislocations of his shoulder. He has been on an invalid pension since 1986 apparently because of these disabilities.
In July 2000 the plaintiff was admitted to Royal Perth Hospital for correction to the deformity to his right leg. He was transferred to the Royal Perth Rehabilitation Hospital at Shenton Park following his operation. On 5 August 2000 he was ambulatory on crutches and while he was walking outside his ward on a covered walkway he slipped and fell.

The pleadings and issues

The plaintiff's statement of claim alleges that his fall was a result of the defendant's negligence and/or breach of statutory duty in failing to ensure that the concrete walkway was safe. In par 3 of the statement of claim the plaintiff alleges that a gutter in the roof of the walkway was leaking causing water to splash onto the walkway. He said that he changed course to avoid the water and in doing so his right crutch slipped on sand on the concrete causing him to fall. The statement of claim alleges that as a result of that fall the plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries to his cervical spine and knee as well as a tearing of tendons in his right shoulder superimposed over a soft tissue injury and in addition jarred his back.
The defence does not admit that the injury occurred as described by the plaintiff and denies any negligence…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mather v Minister for Health and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] WADC 46
Decision Date: 4 FEBRUARY 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mather v Minister for Health involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Mather, and the Minister for Health, who was sued for negligence and breach of statutory duty. Mather claimed to have suffered personal injuries as a result of the defendant's negligence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was whether the Minister for Health owed a duty of care to Mather and if so, whether this duty was breached, leading to Mather's personal injuries. Additionally, the court had to determine if the statutory obligations imposed on the Minister were breached and whether these breaches contributed to the plaintiff's injuries.

The court examined whether the Minister for Health had a duty of care towards Mather, considering the nature of the relationship and the circumstances under which the injuries occurred. It was also necessary to assess whether the statutory duties, if any, imposed on the Minister were breached and if these breaches played a part in Mather's injuries. The court considered the specific facts and circumstances of the case to determine if the Minister's actions or omissions amounted to negligence or a breach of statutory duty.

In its decision, the court found that the Minister for Health did not owe a duty of care to Mather in the circumstances of this case. The court emphasised that each case turns on its own facts and that the relationship between the parties, the foreseeability of harm, and the nature of the statutory obligations needed to be carefully considered. The court held that the statutory duties were not breached in a manner that contributed to Mather's injuries. Consequently, the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

The court ordered that Mather's claims against the Minister for Health be dismissed and that the plaintiff pay the Minister's costs of the proceedings. The decision underscored the importance of the specific circumstances and factual matrix in determining the existence of a duty of care and whether statutory obligations were breached.

Orders