McVey v St Vincent's Hospital (Melbourne) Ltd

[2006] HCATrans 169

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M131 of 2005

B e t w e e n -
WILLIAM JAMES McVEY
Applicant
and
ST VINCENT’S HOSPITAL (MELBOURNE) LTD
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal
Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 11 APRIL 2006, AT 1.52 PM

HAYNE J: The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. By those orders, Eames and Ashley JJA and Hollingworth AJA refused leave to appeal out of time against a consent order made by Judge Shelton of the County Court dismissing the proceedings instituted by the applicant and making no order as to costs.

The applicant had filed a writ in the County Court on 29 September 2003, seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by the respondent’s negligent treatment of him on or about 1987. On 8 June 2004, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal made an order under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 (Vic) appointing State Trustees Limited (“the trustee”) as administrator of the applicant’s estate for purposes which included legal proceedings. Following its appointment, the trustee notified the County Court that it acted for the applicant. The trustee subsequently advised the County Court that the parties had reached an agreement that the proceedings be dismissed with no order as to costs, and Judge Shelton signed a consent order to this effect.

When the applicant learned that the proceedings had been dismissed he filed a notice of appeal, at a time when the administration order remained in place. The applicant argued that the trustee had exceeded its statutory authority in reaching the agreement and failed to act in his best interests. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that in the circumstances the consent order could not be set aside and the notice of appeal issued by the applicant was not valid.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

It is difficult to discern the proposed grounds of appeal from the applicant’s draft notice of appeal and written submissions in support of the application for special leave. However, it is apparent that the applicant maintains that the trustee failed to act in his best interests. The applicant has not advanced any question of law which would warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. In any event, we see no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.

AT 1.54 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McVey v St Vincent's Hospital (Melbourne) Ltd concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal. The appellant, Ms McVey, had suffered injury and sought to recover damages from the respondent, St Vincent's Hospital (Melbourne) Ltd, alleging negligence. The central dispute revolved around whether the hospital owed a duty of care to Ms McVey in relation to the provision of medical treatment.

The High Court was required to determine whether the hospital owed a duty of care to Ms McVey, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the court considered the nature and scope of the duty of care owed by a hospital to a patient in the context of medical treatment and the principles governing the assessment of whether that duty had been breached.

The High Court held that a hospital owes a duty of care to its patients to exercise reasonable care in the provision of medical treatment. This duty extends to ensuring that the treatment provided is of a reasonable standard, and that reasonable steps are taken to avoid foreseeable harm. The court found that the hospital had breached its duty of care to Ms McVey by failing to provide treatment that met the required standard, resulting in her injury. The appeal was therefore allowed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established