WALL -v- COOPER [2008] WASCA 53
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2008] WASCA 53 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:71/2006 | 4 DECEMBER 2007 | |
| Coram: | MARTIN CJ WHEELER JA McLURE JA | 4/03/08 | |
| 31 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed Cross-appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MELVYN LEE MAXWELL WALL TIMOTHY MICHAEL COOPER |
Catchwords: | Appeal Medical negligence Causation General damages Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 31.35 |
Case References: | Amaca v Hannell [2007] WASCA 158; (2007) 34 WAR 109 Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare (1992) 176 CLR 408 City of Stirling v Tremeer [2006] WASCA 73; (2006) 32 WAR 155 Henville v Walker (2001) 206 CLR 459 March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506 Strempel v Wood [2005] WASCA 163 Thatcher v Charles (1961) 104 CLR 57 Wall v Cooper [2006] WADC 81; (2006) 43 SR (WA) 69 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : WALL -v- COOPER [2008] WASCA 53 CORAM : MARTIN CJ
- WHEELER JA
McLURE JA
- Appellant
AND
TIMOTHY MICHAEL COOPER
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : YEATS DCJ
Citation : WALL -v- COOPER [2006] WADC 81
File No : CIV 1187 of 2003
Catchwords:
Appeal - Medical negligence - Causation - General damages - Turns on own facts
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 31.35
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Cross-appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr C L Zelestis QC & Mr N P Dobree
Respondent : Mr J R B Ley
Solicitors:
Appellant : Nicholas P Dobree
Respondent : Clayton Utz
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Amaca v Hannell [2007] WASCA 158; (2007) 34 WAR 109
Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare (1992) 176 CLR 408
City of Stirling v Tremeer [2006] WASCA 73; (2006) 32 WAR 155
Henville v Walker (2001) 206 CLR 459
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Strempel v Wood [2005] WASCA 163
Thatcher v Charles (1961) 104 CLR 57
Wall v Cooper [2006] WADC 81; (2006) 43 SR (WA) 69
(Page 3)
1 MARTIN CJ: I agree with Wheeler JA that the appeal and the cross-appeal should both be dismissed, for the reasons she gives. However, I wish to add a few observations of my own.
2 A significant plank of the appellant's argument rested upon the fact that, during cross-examination, Dr Golledge accepted that if the appellant's uncontradicted description of the wound was correct, it was not a superficial wound. The appellant argues that as a result of that acknowledgement, it should be concluded that, in the opinion of Dr Golledge, the wound was a high…
Continue reading Wall v Cooper
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Wall v Cooper [2008] WASCA 53
- Case
- [2008] WASCA 53
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Wall v Cooper, the court was presented with a case involving a medical negligence claim. The plaintiff, Wall, brought action against the defendant, Cooper, a medical practitioner, alleging that Cooper's negligence in the treatment of Wall resulted in significant harm. The dispute was brought before the court with a focus on whether Cooper's actions fell below the standard of care expected in the medical profession and if this breach directly led to Wall's injuries. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the relevant jurisdiction, where the plaintiff sought both general damages for pain and suffering and a determination of causation.
The primary legal issues before the court involved the standard of care expected in medical treatment and the causal link between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injuries. The court had to consider whether the medical procedures performed by Cooper met the professional standard and if the harm suffered by Wall was a direct result of any substandard care. Furthermore, the court was required to assess the plaintiff's entitlement to general damages in light of the proven causation.
The court addressed these issues by examining the evidence and expert opinions presented. It concluded that Cooper did not breach the standard of care expected in the medical profession and that any harm suffered by Wall was not a result of this alleged breach. Consequently, the court found in favour of the defendant, Cooper, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The court also dismissed the cross-appeal by the defendant, affirming the decision made in the lower court. The final orders of the court were that the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, with no damages awarded to the plaintiff.
The primary legal issues before the court involved the standard of care expected in medical treatment and the causal link between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injuries. The court had to consider whether the medical procedures performed by Cooper met the professional standard and if the harm suffered by Wall was a direct result of any substandard care. Furthermore, the court was required to assess the plaintiff's entitlement to general damages in light of the proven causation.
The court addressed these issues by examining the evidence and expert opinions presented. It concluded that Cooper did not breach the standard of care expected in the medical profession and that any harm suffered by Wall was not a result of this alleged breach. Consequently, the court found in favour of the defendant, Cooper, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The court also dismissed the cross-appeal by the defendant, affirming the decision made in the lower court. The final orders of the court were that the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, with no damages awarded to the plaintiff.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
Cross-appeal dismissed
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.