SA (a pseudonym) v Hatfield - [2025] NSWDC 56

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: SA (a pseudonym) v Hatfield [2025] NSWDC 56
Hearing dates: 27 February 2025
Date of orders: 27 February 2025
Decision date: 27 February 2025
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Dicker SC DCJ
Decision:
Orders:
In relation to the Notice of Motion filed on 21 February 2025:
1. The application to vacate the hearing date is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the Notice of Motion as agreed or assessed.
Note:
(a) The defendant will seek an order for payment in relation to costs incurred for the cancellation of joint conclave conferences.
(b) Counsel for the plaintiff indicates that in light of the current expert evidence, some heads of damage cannot be properly provided until the conclusion of expert oral evidence.

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – vacation of hearing date – relevant factors

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27
DekkanvPicciau [2008] NSWCA 18
Hans Pet Constructions Pty Ltdv Cassar [2009] NSWCA 230
HP Mercantile Pty LtdvClements [2013] NSWSC 1974
MorrisonvJudd [1995] NSWCA 300

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: SA (Plaintiff)
Angela Hatfield (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Hillier (Plaintiff)
J Downing SC (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Commins Hendriks (Plaintiff)
Barry Nilsson (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2022/00302690

JUDGMENT – ex tempore

Before the Court is a Notice of Motion filed on 21 February 2025 by the plaintiff, seeking orders vacating the hearing date. In support of the application, the plaintiff, who was represented by Ms Hillier of counsel, read the affidavits of Geoffrey John Potter dated 14 January 2025, 31 January 2025, 24 February 2025 and 25 February 2025. The Court has reviewed the material in those affidavits.
The defendant, who opposed the application, was represented by Mr Downing of senior counsel, who read the affidavits of Neroli Jane Martin of 25 February 2025 and 26 February 2025. In addition, some documents were tendered on the application but, importantly, as Exhibit B on the application, was the joint expert conclave report of various specialists, which conclave occurred on 19 February 2025 and has been signed by the specialists on 25 and 26 February 2025.
The background to the matter is that the proceedings were commenced by Statement of Claim on 11 October 2022 by the plaintiff, against Dr Hatfield, who is an orthopaedic surgeon, asserting medical negligence in the treatment of the plaintiff by Dr Hatfield. In substance, it is alleged that the surgery performed by Dr Hatfield was not indicated.
The Notice of Motion also seeks leave to file and serve an Amended Statement of Claim, in the form annexed to the Notice of Motion and marked A. That Amended Statement of Claim seeks to join, as additional defendants to the proceedings, Drs Masson and Sammons, who provided treatment and surgery to the plaintiff. Dr Masson saw the plaintiff in September 2013, and performed surgery on the plaintiff after Dr Hatfield, in 2017…

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 SA (a pseudonym) v Hatfield

Details

AGLC: SA (a pseudonym) v Hatfield [2025] NSWDC 56
Case: [2025] NSWDC 56
Decision Date: 27 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of SA (a pseudonym) v Hatfield involved a plaintiff seeking to vacate a hearing date. The plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion on 21 February 2025, but the defendant opposed the application. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, where the primary focus was on the appropriateness of vacating the hearing date.

The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff had provided sufficient justification for vacating the hearing date. This decision hinged on several factors, including the reasons for the request, the impact of the vacating on the defendant, and the availability of alternative dates. The court also considered whether the plaintiff had acted reasonably and with due diligence in scheduling the hearing.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the plaintiff had not provided adequate justification for vacating the hearing date, as the reasons given were not compelling enough to warrant such action. Additionally, the court noted that the defendant would incur additional costs due to the cancellation of joint conclave conferences. As a result, the application to vacate the hearing date was dismissed. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of the Notice of Motion as agreed or assessed. The defendant indicated an intention to seek an order for payment in relation to costs incurred for the cancellation of joint conclave conferences. The plaintiff’s counsel also noted that certain heads of damage could not be properly provided until the conclusion of expert oral evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

In relation to the Notice of Motion filed on 21 February 2025:

1. The application to vacate the hearing date is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the Notice of Motion as agreed or assessed.

Note:

(a) The defendant will seek an order for payment in relation to costs incurred for the cancellation of joint conclave conferences.

(b) Counsel for the plaintiff indicates that in light of the current expert evidence, some heads of damage cannot be properly provided until the conclusion of expert oral evidence.

Catchwords:

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	SA (a pseudonym) v Hatfield [2025] NSWDC 56
Hearing dates:	27 February 2025
Date of orders:	27 February 2025
Decision date:	27 February 2025
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Dicker SC DCJ
Decision:	Orders: In relation to the Notice of Motion filed on 21 February 2025: 1. The application to vacate the hearing date is dismissed. 2. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the Notice of Motion as agreed or assessed. Note: (a) The defendant will seek an order for payment in relation to costs incurred for the cancellation of joint conclave conferences. (b) Counsel for the plaintiff indicates that in light of the current expert evidence, some heads of damage cannot be properly provided until the conclusion of expert oral evidence.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – vacation of hearing date – relevant factors
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27 DekkanvPicciau [2008] NSWCA 18 Hans Pet Constructions Pty Ltdv Cassar [2009] NSWCA 230 HP Mercantile Pty LtdvClements [2013] NSWSC 1974 MorrisonvJudd [1995] NSWCA 300
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	SA (Plaintiff) Angela Hatfield (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: J Hillier (Plaintiff) J Downing SC (Defendant) Solicitors: Commins Hendriks (Plaintiff) Barry Nilsson (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2022/00302690