NSW Caselaw
New South Wales District Court
CITATION: Hawes v Holley [2008] NSWDC 147
HEARING DATE(S): 7-11 April 2008, 16 May 2008 and 7-8 July 2008
JUDGMENT DATE: 22 August 2008
JURISDICTION: Civil
JUDGMENT OF: Hungerford ADCJ
DECISION: Verdict for the first defendant against the plaintiff; parties to be heard on costs before final orders made. To extent necessary, if liability in negligence of first defendant had been found, damages quantified in amount of $95,005.18. Action settled as between plaintiff and second defendant.
CATCHWORDS: TORTS - Professional negligence - Medical practitioner - Failure to treat patient by pharmacological means to avoid need for abdominal surgery - Pseudo obstruction in bowel secondary to spinal surgery - Complications from abdominal surgery - Whether diagnosis wrong as leading to mismanagement of patient - Whether treatment in accordance with acceptable professional standards of competent medical practice - Defence of treatment given being widely accepted in Australia by peer professional opinion as competent professional practice - Whether differing peer professional opinions - Quantification of damages
Civil Liability Act 2002, ss 5O, 13 and 16 (2) LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 Workers Compensation Act 1987, s 151Z
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 Bruce v Kaye [2004] NSWSC 277 Connor v Blacktown District Hospital [1971] 1 NSWLR 713 CASES CITED: Dobler v Kenneth Halverson [2007] NSWCA 335 Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 Rooty Hill Medical Centre v Gunther [2002] NSWCA 60
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate