JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: VEITCH -v- CONNOR [2023] WADC 38
CORAM: GETHING DCJ
HEARD: 26-28 APRIL, 17-18 OCTOBER 2022, 27 FEBRUARY, 1 & 3 MARCH 2023
DELIVERED : 31 MARCH 2023
FILE NO/S: CIV 2118 of 2018
BETWEEN: JULIA ANN VEITCH
Plaintiff
AND
DANIEL IGNATIUS CONNOR
Defendant
Catchwords:
Solicitors' negligence - Solicitor allowed the plaintiff's common law claim against a medical practitioner to be dismissed pursuant to District Court Rules 2005 (WA) r 44G - Assessment of the value of the lost opportunity to pursue the dismissed claim - Assessment of past and future medical expenses in a loss of opportunity claim - Whether surgical decisions of an ophthalmologist were outside practices that were widely accepted by the health professional's peers as competent professional practice - Failure to warn of material risks - resipsa loquitur - Scope of the non-delegable duty of care of a hospital
[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.
Continue reading Veitch v Connor
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Veitch v Connor [2023] WADC 38
Case
[2023] WADC 38
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Veitch v Connor involved the plaintiff, Veitch, who sued the defendant, Connor, for professional negligence. The plaintiff alleged that Connor, acting as Veitch's solicitor, failed to properly pursue a common law claim Veitch had against a medical practitioner. As a result, Veitch's claim was dismissed under rule 44G of the District Court Rules 2005 (WA). The court was tasked with assessing the value of the lost opportunity to pursue the dismissed claim, as well as the past and future medical expenses in a loss of opportunity claim. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the surgical decisions of an ophthalmologist were outside practices that were widely accepted by the health professional's peers as competent professional practice, and whether there was a failure to warn of material risks. The case also raised issues regarding the application of res ipsa loquitur and the scope of the non-delegable duty of care of a hospital.
The court examined the standard of care expected of a solicitor in this situation, and whether Connor's actions fell below that standard. The court also considered the extent to which the plaintiff's lost opportunity to pursue the dismissed claim could be valued, and how this related to the assessment of past and future medical expenses. In relation to the ophthalmologist's decisions, the court examined whether they were in line with accepted medical practice, and whether the failure to warn of material risks constituted a breach of duty. The application of res ipsa loquitur and the scope of the non-delegable duty of care of a hospital were also examined in the context of the case.
The court found that Connor had indeed fallen below the standard of care expected of a solicitor, leading to the dismissal of Veitch's claim against the medical practitioner. The court assessed the value of the lost opportunity to pursue the dismissed claim, taking into account the past and future medical expenses. The court determined that the ophthalmologist's decisions were within accepted medical practice, and that there was no failure to warn of material risks. The application of res ipsa loquitur was deemed inapplicable in this case, and the scope of the non-delegable duty of care of a hospital was clarified. The court ruled in favour of Veitch, awarding damages for the solicitor's negligence.
The court ordered Connor to pay Veitch compensation for the losses suffered as a result of the solicitor's negligence. The amount of compensation was determined based on the value of the lost opportunity to pursue the dismissed claim, as well as the past and future medical expenses. The court also provided clarification on the scope of the non-delegable duty of care of a hospital, and the application of res ipsa loquitur in similar cases. The ruling in Veitch v Connor serves as an important reminder of the importance of maintaining a high standard of care in the provision of legal services, as well as the need for medical professionals to adhere to accepted practices and to properly inform patients of material risks.