Mills v Lee & Ors

This case concerned an appeal from a decision of the primary judge regarding allegations of medical negligence against Dr Lee, an obstetrician. The appellant, the child born to KM, alleged that Dr Lee breached his duty of care by failing to diagnose or suspect an intrauterine infection and administer antibiotics, and by failing to transfer KM to a tertiary medical institution in a timely manner. The dispute centred on whether Dr Lee's actions or omissions met the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent obstetrician in 1983, given the medical knowledge and practices of that time.

The legal issues before the court were whether Dr Lee breached his duty of care to the appellant by failing to administer antibiotics to KM, and whether he breached his duty by not transferring KM to Westmead Hospital earlier. Crucially, the court had to determine if the primary judge's findings of fact, particularly those based on expert medical evidence, were open to be made on the evidence presented at trial, and whether those findings demonstrated a failure to meet the required standard of care.

The court considered extensive expert evidence from both the appellant and the respondents. The primary judge preferred the evidence of the respondents' experts, who testified that in 1983, there was no established link between chorioamnionitis and adverse neurological outcomes for infants, and that intact membranes were considered an effective barrier against ascending infection. The court found that it was open to the primary judge to conclude that, in the absence of ruptured membranes, antibiotics would have been ineffective, and that Dr Lee did not breach his duty of care by not commencing antibiotic therapy. Furthermore, the court agreed with the primary judge's finding that causation had not been established.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.