CITATION: Tamworth Base Hospital & Anor v Durant [2000] NSWCA 209 revised - 30/04/2007 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40033/98 HEARING DATE(S): 5/6 October 1999 JUDGMENT DATE:
8 August 2000PARTIES :
Tamworth Base Hospital, A.W.Oliver and G. Russell as Executors of the Estate of the late Bryant Lewis Bedville v Terence Paul DurantJUDGMENT OF: Priestley JA at 1; Handley JA at 60; Fitzgerald JA at 167
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :CLD 11919/80 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Murray AJ and Master Greenwood
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
CA 40033/98
CLD 11919/80PRIESTLEY JA
HANDLEY JA
FITZGERALD JATuesday, 8 August 2000
TAMWORTH BASE HOSPITAL & ANOR v DURANT
The…
PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL) - APPEAL ATTACKING JUDGE’S FACT FINDING - The respondent’s broken leg was attended to by a general practitioner on call at a country hospital (1978). The leg was later amputated (1983). The respondent claimed the loss of the leg was due to the general practitioner’s (and vicariously the hospital’s) neglect. (He had commenced proceedings in 1980 before the amputation.) In 1994 the Prothonotary refused to dismiss the proceedings for want of prosecution. After a trial in 1997 before a judge alone, the appellants were held liable.
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Tamworth Base Hospital v Durant and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2000] NSWCA 209
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had erred in their findings of fact regarding the appellant's alleged negligence. Specifically, the appeal questioned the factual basis upon which the finding of negligence was made.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the primary judge's factual findings were not supported by the evidence. The court determined that the evidence did not establish the necessary elements to prove professional negligence on the part of the Tamworth Base Hospital. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Supreme Court were set aside.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed.
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.