Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Abdelmaseih v South Western Sydney Local Health District trading as Liverpool Hospital [2024] NSWSC 1543 Hearing dates: 29 November 2024 Date of orders: 29 November 2024 Decision date: 29 November 2024 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Lonergan J Decision: (1) I note this matter has settled subject to approval in accordance with the terms of the Consent Judgment signed by the legal representatives of the parties and signed by me, dated today's date, and placed with the court papers. (2) I approve the settlement pursuant to s 76(4) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). (3) I make orders in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 10, 12 and 13 of that Consent Judgment. (4) I order, in accordance with section 77(2) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), that the judgment sum referred to in paragraph 2 of the Consent Judgment, less any authorised deductions for which the Consent Judgment specifically, or by necessary implication provides, be paid into Court pending further order of this Court. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – settlement approval – proceedings brought by person under legal incapacity – Court approval Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mureed Abdelmaseih (Plaintiff) South Western Sydney Local Health District trading as Liverpool Hospital (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: S Tzouganatos (Plaintiff) S Kettle (Defendant) Solicitors: Turner Freeman Lawyers (Plaintiff) Norton Rose Fulbright (Defendant) File Number(s): 2022/00290756 Publication restriction: Nil JUDGMENT 1. Mureed Abdelmaseih is now 41 years old. In June 2019 he presented to Liverpool Hospital with serious cardiac symptoms. His case, brought by his father as tutor on Mureed's behalf, is that Liverpool Hospital inadequately treated him and discharged Mureed prematurely. Mureed became extremely unwell a few days later whilst out in the city. He was transported by ambulance suffering serious chest pain and cardiac symptoms. He was admitted to St Vincent's Hospital on 22 June, where unfortunately, again, he was treated inadequately and in a delayed fashion. 2. The fact that Mureed was treated negligently at both hospitals is, in my view, well-supported by succinct reports of the expert cardiologist, Dr Harper. 3. Liverpool Hospital denied breach of duty of care based on a competing expert opinion from Professor Mark Adams, also a very reputable senior cardiologist. 4. St Vincent's Hospital admitted that it had breached its duty of care to Mureed, but disputed, as is sometimes the case, the issue of whether its negligence at that later date caused the symptoms and problems and disabilities that Mureed came to suffer, and whether the things they did (or did not do) were a necessary condition of that harm. 5. Both defendants placed in issue the extent of Mureed's disabilities and whether they were caused by anything each hospital did or failed to do. 6. The plaintiff's solicitors and counsel engaged in comprehensive retainer of different disciplines of expert opinion, which in my view well-support that the combination of injuries and disabilities that unfortunately Mureed is now left with, were caused by the defendants' failures. 7. Mureed had extensive periods in hospital and has ended up with diminished cardiac function and a number of disabilities associated with that, and an injury to his brain of a hypoxic nature which has led to cognitive impairment, difficulty with speech and difficulty with memory and executive functioning. Mureed sustained injuries to his kidneys, he has impaired motor skills, he is unable to work and needs a great deal of assistance and attention on a day-to-day basis which has been provided by his family. 8. I pause here to observe that in this community often the care of family members who suffer injuries, medical or otherwise, often falls to family. I observe in this case Mureed is lucky to have such a loving, supportive and caring family around him to provide him with those daily prompts, supervision and care that he has needed and will continue to need. 9. In the period leading up to June 2019 Mureed had been working as a sales assistant but he has been unable to continue in that role since. He also has psychological difficulties, understandably, as a result of being relatively healthy prior, (although not perfectly healthy as he had diabetes and some psychological issues that were being managed), but now he has a significantly diminished enjoyment of life. 10. He is entitled to significant compensation. 11. The parties attended mediation and were able to settle the matter shortly after mediation for what is, in my view, an appropriate figure given the issues. 12. The excellent and detailed analysis by counsel, Mr Tzouganatos, and the carefully prepared affidavits of the solicitor with conduct of the proceedings, and the affidavit of the tutor, Mr Milad Abdelmaseih, satisfy me that careful consideration has been given to the adequacy and propriety of the settlement. It is one that I have concluded is clearly in the best interests of Mureed. 13. For all these reasons I approve the settlement and make the following orders: 1. I note this matter has settled subject to approval in accordance with the terms of the Consent Judgment signed by the legal representatives of the parties and signed by me, dated today's date, and placed with the court papers. 2. I approve the settlement pursuant to s 76(4) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). 3. I make orders in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 10, 12 and 13 of that Consent Judgment. 4. I order, in accordance with section 77(2) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), that the judgment sum referred to in paragraph 2 of the Consent Judgment, less any authorised deductions for which the Consent Judgment specifically, or by necessary implication provides, be paid into Court pending further order of this Court. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 04 December 2024