CITATION: Tai v Hatzistavrou [1999] NSWCA 306 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40134/97 HEARING DATE(S): 9 April 1999 JUDGMENT DATE:
25 August 1999PARTIES :
William Tai V Barbara HatzistavrouJUDGMENT OF: Priestley JA at 1; Handley JA at 96; Powell JA at 97
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : DC 5329/95 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: His Honour Acting Judge Williams
COUNSEL: Appellant - A.J. Sullivan QC / Miss L. McCallum / B. Zipser
Respondent - C.E. O'Connor QC / T.F. McKenzieSOLICITORS: Appellant - Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Respondent - Photios Vouroudis & Co, BurwoodCATCHWORDS: Action in District Court for professional negligence against specialist gynaecologist CASES CITED: Albrighton v Royal Prince Alfred Hospital [1980] 2 NSWLR 542
Battersby v Tottman (1985) 37 SASR 189
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582; [1957] 2 AER 118
E v Australian Red Cross (1991) 27 FCR 310
F v R 33 SASR 189
Forman v Pilsbury 733 F.Supp 14
Giurelli v Girgis (1980) 24 SASR 264
Gover v State of South Australia (1985) 39 SASR 543
Kalokerinos v Burnett (CA 30/1/96, unreported)
Kite v Malycha (1998) 71 SASR 321
Maynard v West Midland Regional Health Authority [1984] 1 WLR 634
O'Brien v Wheeler (CA, 23/5/97, unreported)
Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479
Samios v Repatriation Commission [1960] WAR 219
Sidaway v Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985] AC 891
Thomsen v Davison [1975] Qd R 93
Whitehouse v Jordan [1981] 1 WLR 246; [1981] 2 AER 267DECISION: Appeal dismissed
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
CA 40134/97
DC 5329/95PRIESTLEY JA
HANDLEY JA
POWELL JAWednesday, 25 August 1999
TAI v HATZISTAVROU
PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IN DISTRICT COURT FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE AGAINST SPECIALIST GYNAECOLOGIST - plaintiff the defendant’s patient for twelve years - regular checkups for cancer - defendant advises plaintiff to have precautionary operation - defendant asks plaintiff to arrange time for operation with hospital - plaintiff lodges request for admission form - in ordinary course hospital would have fixed date for operation within about two months and notified plaintiff - hospital did not notify plaintiff of any operation date - operation eventually done and cancer discovered about five or six months later than it would have been if done when originally intended - defendant had not made any enquiry about the plaintiff not being scheduled for operation in accordance with his advice - defendant had no follow up system for such eventualities - cancer would have been discovered by the earlier operation had it been done - plaintiff suffered damage by delay - trial judge finds defendant liable.
On appeal, held: trial judge was correct - defendant failed in his duty to the plaintiff to take reasonable steps to see that the operation he thought necessary in plaintiff’s interest was carried out.
Albrighton v Royal Prince Alfred Hospital [1980] 2 NSWLR 542
Battersby v Tottman (1985) 37 SASR 189
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1…
Continue reading Tai v Hatzistavrou
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Tai v Hatzistavrou [1999] NSWCA 306
- Case
- [1999] NSWCA 306
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The parties to this appeal were the plaintiff, Tai, and the defendant, Hatzistavrou, a specialist gynaecologist. The dispute arose from an action for professional negligence commenced in the District Court. The appeal was heard by Priestley, Handley and Powell JJA in the Court of Appeal.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge had erred in finding that the defendant gynaecologist was not negligent in his treatment of the plaintiff. Specifically, the court was required to consider whether the defendant had met the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent specialist gynaecologist in the circumstances.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment. The court applied the principles established in *Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee* [1957] 1 WLR 582 and *Mchale v Watson* (1966) 115 CLR 199, which hold that a medical practitioner is not guilty of negligence if they have acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion, even if that opinion differs from other equally responsible bodies of opinion. The court was satisfied that the defendant's actions were consistent with accepted medical practice and that the plaintiff had not established that the defendant had failed to exercise reasonable care and skill.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge had erred in finding that the defendant gynaecologist was not negligent in his treatment of the plaintiff. Specifically, the court was required to consider whether the defendant had met the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent specialist gynaecologist in the circumstances.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment. The court applied the principles established in *Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee* [1957] 1 WLR 582 and *Mchale v Watson* (1966) 115 CLR 199, which hold that a medical practitioner is not guilty of negligence if they have acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion, even if that opinion differs from other equally responsible bodies of opinion. The court was satisfied that the defendant's actions were consistent with accepted medical practice and that the plaintiff had not established that the defendant had failed to exercise reasonable care and skill.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.