Tai v Hatzistavrou

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.