Milone v St Andrew's Hospital

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of Grazialla Nardia Geralda Milone, an infant, by her next friend Giovanni Milone, versus St Andrew’s War Memorial Hospital, John Douglas Newman Yelland, and James Raymond Tiernan was heard. The infant plaintiff, born on 31 December 1971, suffered severe convulsions from about April 1972 onwards, resulting in brain damage. The action was brought for medical negligence, with the incident occurring in 1972 and the writ issued in 1981. The plaintiff sought leave to further amend the statement of claim to include a breach of contract claim against the defendants. The primary amendment sought was to include a breach of contract claim against St Andrew's Hospital and the other two defendants, along with various other particulars.

The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to further amend the statement of claim to include a breach of contract claim against the defendants and if some of the particulars were defective and should be excluded. The second defendant opposed the amendment on the basis that it introduced a new cause of action and some of the particulars were defective. The third and fourth defendants also opposed the new cause of action in contract but did not object to the particulars if leave was granted to amend. The court had to determine whether the amendment would prejudice the defendants, whether the particulars were sufficiently detailed, and whether the breach of contract claim was relevant and necessary.

The court found that the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the statement of claim to include a breach of contract claim against the third and fourth defendants, as there was no significant prejudice shown and the particulars did not introduce wider issues. However, the allegation regarding the provision or holding out of facilities and attributes by the second defendant was deemed unnecessary and irrelevant to the breach of contract claim. The word "management" was deemed sufficiently understood and did not widen the scope of the existing pleading. The court also found that the particulars were sufficiently detailed to inform the defendants of the allegations. The formal orders granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim with certain deletions and consequential amendments, and ordered that the costs of the application be costs in the cause.