Tinnock v Murrumbidgee Local Health District (No 6)

The case of Tinnock v Murrumbidgee Local Health District (No 6) involved a claim for medical negligence against the Murrumbidgee Local Health District. The plaintiff, Tinnock, alleged that following an incisional hernia repair, she suffered a severe post-operative infection associated with surgical mesh. The primary case was presented as a battery, with an alternative case in negligence. The court was required to decide whether there was an intentional tort of battery, given Tinnock's argument that she had not consented to a registrar operating on her, and whether there was negligence in the post-operative care and infection management.

The court examined whether Tinnock's consent to the surgical operation was valid, considering her argument that she did not consent to a registrar operating on her. The court held that any mistake as to the identity of the surgeon did not alter the nature and character of the act, and that the competence of the surgeon was relevant to negligence but not to battery. The court also found that the act was not an intentional act done with the intent to cause injury for the purposes of s 3B of the Civil Liability Act. Regarding negligence, the court determined that there was a breach of the duty of care owed to Tinnock, specifically in the use of "negative pressure surgical drains" and the failure to diagnose the infection upon her re-presentation to the hospital. The breach of duty was held to be causative of the damage suffered by Tinnock.

The court found in favour of Tinnock on the alternative case in negligence, awarding damages for the negligence of the Murrumbidgee Local Health District. The court did not find for Tinnock on the primary case in battery, determining that the act in question did not constitute an intentional tort. The specific orders made by the court, including the amount of damages awarded, were detailed in the judgment but are not reproduced here.