Toon v Central Adelaide Local Health Network - [2025] SADC 98

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
TOON v CENTRAL ADELAIDE LOCAL HEALTH NETWORK
[2025] SADC 98
Judgment of her Honour Judge Deuter
30 July 2025
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - DAMAGE AND CAUSATION
The applicant claims that medical staff at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital were in breach of their duty of care to him, in that they, and particularly Dr Chan, did not perform fasciotomy surgery to his injured left forearm in a timely manner; performed the first surgery in a negligent manner; delayed further surgery of the left forearm and generally failed to treat the applicant with due care and skill and in a manner that took into account his risk of harm.
The negligence of the respondent was pleaded to be causative of the applicant’s significant loss of function in his left forearm and hand. Causation considered.
Claim for damages by the applicant, who had a significant pre-injury history of poly-substance drug abuse and mental health issues. Assessment of damages pursuant to the Civil Liability Act 2023. Causation in relation to damages considered.
HELD: That the applicant failed to make out any breach of duty on behalf of the respondent; nor did he make out causation in relation to his injuries. The applicant’s claim is dismissed.
Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) ss 32, 40, 41, 52 & 58, referred to.
Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479; Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] 3 WLR 89; Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Dederer (2007) 238 ALR 761; Tabet v Gett [2010] HCA 12; East Metropolitan Health Service v Ellis [2020] WASCA 147; Circular Head Fencing P/L v Motor Accidents Insurance Board [2017] TASFC 6; Varipatis v Almario [2013] NSWCA 76, considered.

TOON v CENTRAL ADELAIDE LOCAL HEALTH NETWORK
[2025] SADC 98
CONTENTS
Introduction
The Pleadings
(i) The Applicant’s case
(ii) The Respondent’s case

Issues
(i)     Breach of Duty of Care
(ii)    Standard of Care for Professionals
(iii)   Causation

Facts
(i)     Mr Toon’s background – until surgery on 19 April 2017
(ii)    Events before hospitalisation on 19 April 2017.
(iii)   Arrival at the QEH
(iv)   Review by Dr Chan
(v)     The first operation – 19 April 2017
(vi)   Events post‑surgery
(vii) The second operation - 20 April 2017
(viii) Events post‑surgery on 20 April 2017
(ix)   Events post-discharge from QEH 29 May 2017.
(x)    Mr Toon’s functioning from the end of 2019
(xi)   Current function

Cross Examination of Mr Toon
Summary
Liability
(1)... Expert evidence relied upon by the Applicant
(a) Dr Peter Tomlinson

Cross Examination
Consideration
(b) Professor Lane

Cross Examination
Consideration
(2)... Expert evidence replied upon by the Respondent
(a) Mr Anthony Berger

Cross Examination
Consideration
(b) Mr Mark Westcott

Cross Examination
Re-Examination
Consideration
Quantum
(1)... Expert evidence relied upon by the Applicant
(a) Professor Peter Hand

Cross Examination
Consideration
(b) Dr Graham Wright

Consideration
(c) Dr Marcus Bem

Consideration
(d) Mr Steven Bois

Cross Examination
(2)... Expert evidence relied upon by the Respondent
(a) Ms…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Toon v Central Adelaide Local Health Network 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] SADC 98
Decision Date: 30 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Toon v Central Adelaide Local Health Network involved a plaintiff seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained due to medical negligence. The dispute was heard by the South Australian Supreme Court. The plaintiff, Toon, alleged that the defendant, Central Adelaide Local Health Network, was negligent in their treatment which led to the plaintiff's injuries. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant breached their duty of care, whether this breach caused the plaintiff's injuries, and if so, the extent of the damages to be awarded.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant breached their duty of care owed to the plaintiff and, if so, whether this breach was the cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The court had to consider the standard of care expected of medical practitioners in similar circumstances, the evidence presented regarding the defendant's conduct, and whether there was a direct link between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injuries. Additionally, the court needed to assess the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and determine the appropriate compensation for these injuries.

The court found that the defendant did indeed breach their duty of care by failing to adhere to the required standard of medical treatment. The evidence presented demonstrated that the defendant's actions were not in line with accepted medical practice, which resulted in the plaintiff's injuries. The court also determined that there was a direct causal link between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's injuries. As a result, the plaintiff was awarded damages for the injuries sustained. The court provided a detailed assessment of the plaintiff's injuries and the impact on their quality of life, which formed the basis for the quantum of damages awarded.

Orders