Tabet v Gett

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria in a dispute between Mr Tabet and Mr Gett. The proceedings concerned allegations of negligence arising from the provision of medical services.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent, Mr Gett, owed a duty of care to the appellant, Mr Tabet, in relation to the provision of medical advice and treatment. Specifically, the Court had to determine the scope of the duty of care owed by a medical practitioner to a patient, and whether that duty extended to advising on the risks of a particular treatment, even if the patient did not specifically ask about those risks.

The High Court held that a medical practitioner owes a duty of care to a patient to take reasonable care to inform the patient of a material risk of a proposed treatment. A risk is material if a reasonable person in the patient's position, if warned of the risk, would be likely to attach significance to it in deciding whether to undergo the treatment. The Court affirmed that the test for materiality is objective, focusing on what a reasonable patient would consider significant, rather than the subjective views of the particular patient. The Court found that the evidence did not establish that the risk in question was material in this sense.

The appeal was dismissed.