Queensland v Masson [2020] HCA 28

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KIEFEL CJ, BELL, KEANE, NETTLE AND GORDON JJ

STATE OF QUEENSLAND APPELLANT

AND

THE ESTATE OF THE LATE JENNIFER LEANNE MASSON RESPONDENT

Queensland v Masson [2020] HCA 28 Date of Hearing: 11 June 2020 Date of Judgment: 13 August 2020 B63/2019

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland made on 10 May and 13 September 2019 and in their place order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs.

3. The respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, including as applicant for special leave to appeal.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland

Representation

S L Doyle QC with R N Traves QC and C J Fitzpatrick for the appellant (instructed by Crown Solicitor (Qld))

B W Walker SC with D R Campbell SC and A S Katsikalis for the respondent (instructed by RMB Lawyers)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Queensland v Masson

Negligence – Standard of care – Breach – Where woman suffering severe asthma attack treated by ambulance officers including intensive care paramedic – Where intensive care paramedic elected to administer intravenous ("IV") salbutamol rather than IV adrenaline in initial phase of treatment due to woman's high heart rate and high blood pressure – Where Clinical Practice Manual ("CPM") required that ambulance officers "consider" IV adrenaline – Whether decision to administer IV salbutamol contrary to CPM – Whether treatment fell below standard of care expected of ordinary skilled intensive care paramedic – Whether trial judge's finding that intensive care paramedic made clinical judgment to administer adrenaline "contrary to compelling inferences" or "glaringly improbable" – Whether administration of IV salbutamol supported by responsible body of opinion within medical profession.