Smit v Chan - [2001] QSC 493

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Smit v Chan [2001] QSC 493

PARTIES:

RONALD SMIT
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
DR CARLOS CHAN
(first defendant)
and
DR MARK D CRADDOCK
(second defendant)
and
DR RICHARD BRAIN
(third defendant)
and

DR WILLIAM CHAN

(fourth defendant)
and
MEDIHELP SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 010 786 071 trading as OLD CLEVELAND ROAD MEDICAL CENTRE
(fifth defendant)
and
BRISBANE SOUTH REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
(sixth defendant/applicant)

FILE NO:

S1233 of 1995

DIVISION:

Trial Division

DELIVERED ON:

21 December 2001

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 December 2001

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

The trial of the proceeding be without a jury.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE - SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE - QUEENSLAND - practice under UCPR - election by plaintiff for trial by jury - exercise of Court’s discretion pursuant to r 474 where conditions in r 474(b) satisfied - factors relevant to the exercise of that discretion

JURY - THE JURY IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS - medical negligence - trial by jury

Judicature Act 1876
Rules of the Supreme Court
UCPR r 5, r 472, r 474, r 475

Clifton Bricks v Gerlach [2000] NSWCA 90
Goldsmith v Pressdram Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 64
Matthews v General Accident Fire and Life Insurance Corporation Ltd [1970] QWN 37
McLennan v Yared (unreported, S2272 of 2001, 17 October 2001)
Nielsen v State of Queensland [2001] 1 QdR 500
Pambula District Hospital v Herriman (1988) 14 NSWLR 387
Peck v Email Ltd (1987) 8 NSWLR 430
Tobin v Payne’s Bon Marché Pty Ltd [1934] VLR 166
Wilson v Burridge [1955] VLR 433

COUNSEL:

M Grant-Taylor SC for the plaintiff/respondent
DK Boddice SC for the first and fourth defendants
DH Tait for the second defendant
DJS Jackson QC and SE Brown for the sixth defendant/applicant

SOLICITORS:

Trilby Misso & Company for the plaintiff/respondent
Blake Dawson Waldron for the first and fourth defendants
Tress Cocks & Maddox for the second defendant
Minter Ellison for the sixth defendant/applicant

MULLINS J: In this proceeding the plaintiff elected in his statement of claim for trial by jury. The sixth defendant filed an application on 24 September 2001 for an order that the trial of this proceeding be heard by judge sitting without a jury. The sixth defendant’s application is supported by the first, second and fourth defendants. The plaintiff has not proceeded against the third and fifth defendants.

Rule 474 of the UCPR provides:

“The court may order a trial without a jury if -
(a) the trial requires a prolonged examination of records; or
(b) involves any technical, scientific or other issue that can not be conveniently considered and resolved by a jury.”

During the hearing of the application it was properly conceded by Mr Grant-Taylor of Senior Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff that the preconditions in r 474(b) were satisfied and what had to be determined was whether or not the discretion conferred by r 474 to order trial without a jury should be exercised.

Stage of proceeding

The plaintiff’s statement of claim was originally delivered on 5 July…

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 Smit v Chan

Details

AGLC: Smit v Chan [2001] QSC 493
Case: [2001] QSC 493
Decision Date: 21 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of Smit v Chan involved a medical negligence claim brought by the plaintiff against the defendant. The plaintiff elected for a trial by jury, but the defendant applied to the court to exercise its discretion under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR) to conduct the trial without a jury. The court needed to decide whether the trial should proceed with a jury, considering the specific conditions outlined in rule 474 of the UCPR.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the conditions under rule 474(b) were met, which allows the court to decide to conduct the trial without a jury. Rule 474(b) provides that the court may decide to conduct the trial without a jury if it is satisfied that the case is one in which the trial ought to be conducted without a jury for reasons of justice. The court considered various factors in making its decision, including the complexity of the case, the nature of the evidence, and the potential for prejudice if the case were to be tried by a jury.

The court, after considering the relevant authorities and factors, concluded that the case satisfied the conditions under rule 474(b). It determined that the medical negligence case was complex and involved technical issues that might be difficult for a lay jury to understand. The court also considered the potential for prejudice to the parties if the case were to be tried by a jury, given the sensitive nature of the allegations and the high stakes involved. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to order that the trial proceed without a jury.

The court's final order was that the trial of the proceeding be without a jury. This decision highlights the court's role in ensuring that the administration of justice is conducted in a manner that is fair and appropriate to the circumstances of each case, particularly in cases involving complex medical negligence claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

The trial of the proceeding be without a jury.

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.

CITATION:	Smit v Chan [2001] QSC 493
PARTIES:	RONALD SMIT (plaintiff/respondent) v DR CARLOS CHAN (first defendant) and DR MARK D CRADDOCK (second defendant) and DR RICHARD BRAIN (third defendant) and DR WILLIAM CHAN (fourth defendant) and MEDIHELP SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 010 786 071 trading as OLD CLEVELAND ROAD MEDICAL CENTRE (fifth defendant) and BRISBANE SOUTH REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY (sixth defendant/applicant)
FILE NO:	S1233 of 1995
DIVISION:	Trial Division
DELIVERED ON:	21 December 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 December 2001
JUDGE:	Mullins J
ORDER:	The trial of the proceeding be without a jury.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE - SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE - QUEENSLAND - practice under UCPR - election by plaintiff for trial by jury - exercise of Court’s discretion pursuant to r 474 where conditions in r 474(b) satisfied - factors relevant to the exercise of that discretion JURY - THE JURY IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS - medical negligence - trial by jury Judicature Act 1876 Rules of the Supreme Court UCPR r 5, r 472, r 474, r 475 Clifton Bricks v Gerlach [2000] NSWCA 90 Goldsmith v Pressdram Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 64 Matthews v General Accident Fire and Life Insurance Corporation Ltd [1970] QWN 37 McLennan v Yared (unreported, S2272 of 2001, 17 October 2001) Nielsen v State of Queensland [2001] 1 QdR 500 Pambula District Hospital v Herriman (1988) 14 NSWLR 387 Peck v Email Ltd (1987) 8 NSWLR 430 Tobin v Payne’s Bon Marché Pty Ltd [1934] VLR 166 Wilson v Burridge [1955] VLR 433
COUNSEL:	M Grant-Taylor SC for the plaintiff/respondent DK Boddice SC for the first and fourth defendants DH Tait for the second defendant DJS Jackson QC and SE Brown for the sixth defendant/applicant
SOLICITORS:	Trilby Misso & Company for the plaintiff/respondent Blake Dawson Waldron for the first and fourth defendants Tress Cocks & Maddox for the second defendant Minter Ellison for the sixth defendant/applicant