Legal Research
Cases
Patiniotis v Garling

Patiniotis v Garling

Case [2025] TASFC 5 12 June 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2025] TASFC 5

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)
CITATION:	Patiniotis v Garling [2025] TASFC 5
PARTIES:	PATINIOTIS, Dr Tony
v
GARLING, Ann Marise
FILE NO:	2017/2024
JUDGMENT
APPEALED FROM:	Garling v Patiniotis [2024] TASSC 29
DELIVERED ON:	12 June 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	10 April 2025
JUDGMENT OF:	Shanahan CJ, Estcourt J, Jago J
CATCHWORDS:

Torts – Negligence – Procedure and evidence – Evidence – Sufficiency of evidence – Appellant's contention that trial judge erred in accepting some and ignoring other evidence about the preferred method of proctoscopic examination in medical negligence case – Trial judge considered and analysed the whole of the evidence and was alive to all considerations raised by appellant – Trial judge's preferred medical evidence was decisive of fundamental issue of position of staple line in anal canal and uncontradicted by proctoscopic examination method evidence – Trial judge correctly weighed expert evidence against other evidence before determining ultimate factual issue – No error by trial judge – Appeal dismissed.

Aust Dig Torts [1370]

Evidence – Admissibility – Opinion evidence – Expert opinion – Basis of opinion – Appellant's contention that trial judge erred in admitting expert evidence on basis that it amounted to impermissible speculation due to absence of internal examination and lack of expertise – Trial judge relied on orthodox reasoning and made no error by trial judge in admitting expert evidence – Appeal dismissed.

Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), s 79(1).
Aust Dig Evidence [1138]

Damages – Assessment of damages in tort – Personal injury – Other heads of damages – Medical, hospital and like expenses –Appellant's contention that trial judge erred in awarding $50,000 in damages for past medical expenses in face of vague and unsatisfactory evidence – Essential aspects of proof of damage in evidence and trial judge entitled to rely on them – No error by trial judge – Appeal dismissed.

Aust Dig Damages [1148]

Damages – Assessment of damages in tort – Personal injury – Other heads of damages – Future care – Generally – Appellant's contention that trial judge erred in relying on joint opinion of expert occupational therapists when calculating damages for respondent's future care – Trial judge entitled to accept joint expert opinion in absence of contrary cogent evidence or any fundamental flaw in factual basis for opinion – Appeal dismissed.

Aust Dig Damages [1135]
Damages – Assessment of damages in tort – Personal injury – General principles governing award of damages

– Cross-appellant's contention that trial judge erred in assessing general damages on several grounds including failing to expose reasoning process and making findings unsupported by evidence – Trial judge's award of damages defensible – Cross-appeal dismissed.

ZAB v ZWM [2021] TASSC 64; Mercer v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd (No 2) [2013] TASSC 35; Raper v
Bowden [2016] TASSC 35, referred to.

Aust Dig Damages [1099]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: K Read SC, J O'Farrell
Respondent: B McTaggart SC, R O'Keefe SC, K…

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 Patiniotis v Garling

Details

AGLC: Patiniotis v Garling [2025] TASFC 5
Case: [2025] TASFC 5
Decision Date: 12 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Patiniotis v Garling* concerned a medical negligence claim. The appellant contended that the trial judge had erred in their assessment of evidence relating to the preferred method of proctoscopic examination.

The central legal issue before the appellate court was whether the trial judge had correctly considered and weighed all the evidence presented, particularly the expert medical evidence concerning the proctoscopic examination, when determining the fundamental factual issue of the position of a staple line within the anal canal.

The court found that the trial judge had thoroughly considered and analysed the entirety of the evidence, including all points raised by the appellant. The judge's preferred medical evidence was decisive on the critical issue of the staple line's position and was not contradicted by the evidence regarding the proctoscopic examination method. Consequently, the trial judge had correctly weighed the expert evidence against other evidence to reach the ultimate factual determination. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders