Noureddine v South Western Sydney Local Health District

[2021] NSWSC 313

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Noureddine v South Western Sydney Local Health District [2021] NSWSC 313

Hearing dates:

31 March 2021

Date of orders:

01 April 2021

Decision date:

01 April 2021

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Harrison J

Decision:

(1)      I note that this matter has settled subject to approval, in accordance with the terms of a consent judgment signed by the legal representatives of the parties.

(2) I approve the settlement pursuant to s 76(4) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.

(3)      I make orders in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 9 inclusive of that consent judgment which for identification will initial, date with today’s date and place with the papers.

(4) I order in accordance with s 77(2) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 that the judgment sum referred to in paragraph 1 of the consent judgment, less any authorised deductions for which the consent judgment specifically or by necessary implication provides, be paid into Court for payment out thereafter to the NSW Trustee & Guardian or as the Court may upon application made pursuant to s 77(3) of the Act otherwise direct.

Catchwords:

SETTLEMENT – approval of settlement – plaintiff under legal disability

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

Category:

Procedural rulings

Parties:

Muhammad Noureddine by his tutor Raghida (Plaintiff)
South Western Sydney Local Health District (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
Brian Dooley SC and M Perry (Plaintiff)

Solicitors:
JP Law Solicitors (Plaintiff)
McCabe Curwood (Defendant)

File Number(s):

2013/182746

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: Muhammad Noureddine was born in January 2004 at the Liverpool Hospital by Caesarean section. His mother was at that time suffering from chorioamnionitis and was receiving intravenous antibiotics. Muhammad alleges that as soon as his mother’s condition was diagnosed it should have alerted the defendants to the known risks to a foetus associated with that maternal infection and that a failure immediately to deliver him surgically was negligent. Muhammad alleges that a material delay in performing the Caesarean resulted in him suffering an hypoxic ischaemic stroke causing brain damage and associated problems that could have avoided by an earlier delivery.

2. The parties have now agreed to settle these proceedings, subject to approval of the Court. The material with which I have been provided makes it abundantly clear that significant differences exist between medical experts about whether or not the delay in Muhammad’s delivery was inconsistent with accepted practice at the time as well as whether the delay was even causally related to the insults that he sustained. The settlement sum represents a substantial compromise to account for the prospect that Muhammad may not succeed if the matter went to a hearing.

3. I have also been provided with a detailed and helpful opinion from Mr Dooley SC and Mr Perry of counsel who appear for Muhammad. They have articulated the competing views of the eminent experts retained on each side. I am satisfied that there is no unanimity of opinion among the experts on the issues of breach of duty and factual causation at least and that it is appropriate that these matters should have been considered in arriving at a settlement sum.

4. I am satisfied in the circumstances that the proposed settlement is in the best interests of Muhammad and I propose to approve it. Accordingly, I make the following orders:

1. I note that this matter has settled subject to approval, in accordance with the terms of a consent judgment signed by the legal representatives of the parties.

2. I approve the settlement pursuant to s 76(4) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.

3. I make orders in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 9 inclusive of that consent judgment which for identification will initial, date with today’s date and place with the papers.

4. I order in accordance with s 77(2) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 that the judgment sum referred to in paragraph 1 of the consent judgment, less any authorised deductions for which the consent judgment specifically or by necessary implication provides, be paid into Court for payment out thereafter to the NSW Trustee & Guardian or as the Court may upon application made pursuant to s 77(3) of the Act otherwise direct.

**********

Decision last updated: 01 April 2021