Quinn v Scholtz

Case [2014] NSWDC 71

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Quinn v Scholtz [2014] NSWDC 71
Hearing dates:2 June 2014, 3 June 2014, 23 June 2014 and 24 June 2014
Decision date: 25 June 2014
Before: Judge M L Williams SC
Decision:

Verdict for the defendants

Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act (NSW) 2002
Cases Cited: Albrighton v Royal Prince Alfred Hospital & Ors [1980] 2 NSWLR 542
Elliott v Bickerstaff [1999] NSWCA 453
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Donna Quinn (Plaintiff)
Dr Jacques Scholtz (Defendant)
Murrumbidgee Local Health District (Defendant)
Representation: Mr A D Campbell (Plaintiff)
Mr S Barnes (Defendants)
Gerard Malouf & Partners (Plaintiff)
TressCox Lawyers (Defendants)
File Number(s):2011 / 318414

Judgment

  1. The plaintiff then 43 years of age came under the care of Dr Scholtz, a general practitioner in Cootamundra and a visiting medical officer at Cootamundra Hospital, on 6 July 2011. On 9 July 2011 she underwent an open appendicectomy at Wagga Wagga Base Hospital (Wagga Hospital). Events over that period have led to a claim by the plaintiff against Dr Scholtz and Murrumbidgee Local Health District, the operator of Cootamundra Hospital.

  1. When the case came on for hearing on 2 June 2014 Counsel indicated that it was proposed to call seven doctors to give expert evidence on issues arising in the case. Fortunately, following further orders, a number of the witnesses were able to participate in a conclave and give concurrent evidence when the matter resumed on 23 June 2014.

Agreed Facts

  1. The assumptions upon which the expert conclave proceeded have been adopted as agreed facts by both counsel (with three minor exceptions to which I will refer). This helpful and sensible agreement enables me to record those facts as follows.

Tuesday 5 July 2011

  1. From approximately 18:00 on Tuesday, 5 July 2011 the plaintiff developed right-sided abdominal pain and vomiting.

Wednesday 6 July 2011

  1. At approximately 1015 hours on Wednesday, 6 July 2011 the plaintiff presented to Cootamundra Hospital and was seen soon thereafter by Sue McGlynn, the Nurse Unit Manager. The 'Presenting Problem and Nursing Assessment' records state:

"Pains in side constant vomiting
Vomiting since 1800 hrs 5/7/11 +abdo pain- RIF"

  1. She was triaged category 3.

  1. Sue McGlynn took a history at 10 30 hrs and performed an examination and the notes record:

"presents to A&E with history of vomiting since 1800hrs 5/7/11 & lower right sided abdo pain. BO this am. states same "loose". States feeling miserable. Unable to keep fluids down. States abdo pain "all over abdo" and pain extreme! Bowel sounds present on auscultation. Abdo tender on palpation."

  1. At 1010 and 1115 hours respectively the plaintiff's vital signs were recorded as follows:

Temp Pulse Resps BP SaO2 FiO2
1015 36.7 83 24 146/81 98% RA
1115 36.5 78 20 140/77 99% R/A

  1. There were no resident medical practitioners at Cootamundra Hospital. The local general practitioners held VMO appointments and participated in an on-call roster.

  1. On 6 July 2011 the on-call VMO was Dr Scholtz, a general practitioner.…

Continue reading Quinn v Scholtz

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Quinn v Scholtz [2014] NSWDC 71
Case
[2014] NSWDC 71
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Quinn v Scholtz was heard before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Mr Quinn, sued the defendants, Mr and Mrs Scholtz, for damages for an alleged breach of contract. Mr Quinn claimed that the Scholtzes failed to honour an agreement to sell him their property in Sydney, which he had agreed to purchase for a specified price. The Scholtzes denied any breach and argued that the contract was void due to misrepresentation by Mr Quinn regarding his ability to complete the purchase.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the contract between the parties was valid and binding. The court needed to determine if there was a genuine agreement and if the terms of the contract were clear and capable of being enforced. A secondary issue was whether there had been any misrepresentation by either party that would render the contract void or voidable.

The court found that the contract was indeed valid and binding. It held that the terms of the agreement were clear and that both parties had intended to be legally bound by them. The court dismissed Mr Quinn's claim that there had been any misrepresentation by the Scholtzes. It found that Mr Quinn had not provided any evidence to support his claim that he was unable to complete the purchase due to circumstances beyond his control. The court ruled that the defendants were not liable for breach of contract and ordered a verdict in their favour.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdict for the defendants

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.