Prescott-Smith v Sandhu & Anor

The case of Prescott-Smith v Sandhu & Anor involved a plaintiff who brought proceedings against medical practitioners alleging negligence and breach of contract in relation to the provision of medical services. The dispute centred on the administration of an epidural anaesthetic and a subsequent caesarean section, with the plaintiff claiming she suffered pain during the procedure, was not adequately warned of potential risks, and experienced psychological distress due to a longitudinal scar left by the incision.

The court was required to determine whether the medical practitioners breached their duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to warn her about the specific type of incision used and its potential consequences, and whether the plaintiff suffered damage as a result of any such failure. Additionally, the court considered whether the plaintiff's account of the procedure, including allegations of pain and a failed epidural, was supported by evidence, and whether the plaintiff had suffered psychological damage attributable to the scar. The court also had to consider whether the plaintiff would have opted against the procedure had she been fully informed of the incision type.

The trial judge's critical finding was that the plaintiff's version of events was not accepted, which disposed of her claims regarding pain during the operation and a failure to warn about counselling. Regarding the longitudinal scar, the trial judge did not accept that the plaintiff would have refused the caesarean section had the choice of incision been presented to her, nor did the judge accept that she suffered emotional stress or psychological trauma due to the scar's appearance. The trial judge concluded that the plaintiff's difficulties could not be attributed to the incidents she complained of. The appellate court agreed with these findings, dismissing the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.