Legal Research
Cases
Naidu v Fergusson

Naidu v Fergusson

Case [2013] ACTSC 208 11 October 2013

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Limitation Periods

Amendment of Pleadings

Res Judicata

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

USHA NAIDU v DR JAMES FERGUSSON
[2013] ACTSC 208 (11 October 2013)

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – pleading – statement of claim – alleged negligence in performance of surgery – amendment of statement of claim before close of pleadings – amended particulars allege failure to warn – application to further amend statement of claim out of time – whether amendment pleads new cause of action – whether new cause of action arises out of substantially the same facts – Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 502, 503, 505, 506

Court Procedures Rules2006 (ACT) rr 502,503, 505, 506
Limitation Act 1985 s 16B(2)

Adam v Shiavon [1985] 1 Qd R 1
Aon Risk Services Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Balnaves v Armellin [2011] ACTSC 67
Balnaves v Armellin [2012] ACTSC 52
Borsato v Campbell [2006] QSC 191
Brickfield Properties Ltd v Newton [1971] 1 WLR 862
Darlington Building Society v O’Rourke James Scourfield & Mccarthy (A Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 1664; [1999] Lloyd’s Rep PN 33
Golski v Kirk (1987) 72 ALR 443
Hamilton v Australian Capital Territory [2011] ACTSC 45
Meredith v Commonwealth of Australia [2009] ACTSC 168
Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479
Rodgers v Commissioner of Taxation (1998) 88 FCR 61
Sagacious Procurement Ltd v Mayne Group Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1238
Sistrom v Rangott [2004] ACTCA 14
State of New South Wales v Radford (2010) 79 NSWLR 327
Sidaway v Board of Governors of Bethlem Royal Hospital and Maudsley Hospital [1985] 1 AC 871
Sion v Hampstead Health Authority [1994] 5 Med LR 170; (1994) EWCA Civ 26
Stone James v Pioneer Concrete (WA) Pty Ltd [1985] WAR 233
Weldon v Neal (1887) 19 QBD 394
Welsh Development Agency v Redpath Dorman Long Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 1409

No. SC 805 of 2011

Judge: Master Mossop
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 11 October 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SC 805 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

BETWEEN:USHA NAIDU
Plaintiff

AND:DR JAMES FERGUSSON
Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Master Mossop
Date:  11 October 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Leave is granted to the plaintiff to file a Further Amended Statement of Claim in the form annexed to the affidavit of Gerard Peter Rees affirmed 20 May 2013.

2. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the application and the costs thrown away by reason of the amendment but such costs may not be assessed until judgment in these proceedings or further order.

1. The plaintiff’s case is a medical negligence claim which was commenced by originating claim dated 23 November 2011. The plaintiff has applied for leave to file a Further Amended Statement of Claim. That application is opposed.

2. There are three versions of the Statement of Claim that are relevant to this application.

(a) the Statement of Claim as originally filed on 23 November 2011;

(b) an Amended Statement of Claim filed on 20 August 2012 without leave before the close…

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.

Continue reading Naidu v Fergusson

Details

AGLC: Naidu v Fergusson [2013] ACTSC 208
Case: [2013] ACTSC 208
Decision Date: 11 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Naidu v Fergusson arose before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the plaintiff, Naidu, sought to amend her statement of claim after the close of pleadings, alleging that the defendant, Fergusson, had been negligent in the performance of a surgical procedure. The initial statement of claim alleged negligence in the performance of the surgery, but Naidu sought to further amend it to include a failure to warn allegation. Fergusson opposed the amendment, arguing that it pleaded a new cause of action and did not arise out of substantially the same facts.

The court considered whether the amendment was permissible under the Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT). Specifically, it examined whether the amendment pleaded a new cause of action and whether this new cause of action arose out of substantially the same facts as the original claim. The court had to balance the need for fair and just resolution of the dispute with the principle of finality in the pleading process.

In determining the application, the court held that the amendment pleaded a new cause of action, as the failure to warn allegation was not encompassed within the original allegation of negligence in the performance of surgery. However, the court found that the new cause of action arose out of substantially the same facts as the original claim, as both were related to the same surgical procedure. Consequently, the court allowed the amendment, emphasising the importance of ensuring that all relevant issues are before the court for a fair and just resolution.

The court's decision underscored the need for careful consideration of amendments to pleadings, particularly in relation to the pleading of new causes of action. It also highlighted the importance of ensuring that all relevant issues are presented to the court to facilitate a fair and just resolution of the dispute.

Orders