Alexander v Heise & Anor [2001] NSWCA 422

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : Alexander v Heise & Anor [2001] NSWCA 422 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40125/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 8 November 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 27 November 2001

Christine Jeanette Marguerite Alexander - Appellant PARTIES : Geoffery Heise - 1st Respondent Keren Heise - 2nd Respondent JUDGMENT OF : Priestley JA at 1; Stein JA at 2; Ipp AJA at 36

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court LOWER COURT SC 20083/99 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Master Harrison JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : P Menzies QC/D Hirsch - Appellant D Davies SC - Respondents SOLICITORS : Maurice Blackburn Cashman - Appellant Tress Cocks & Maddox - Respondents CATCHWORDS : TORT - NEGLIGENCE - medical receptionist - prioritisation of patients - whether a duty of care owed - whether breach of duty - whether all relevant information communicated - exercise of judgment - EVIDENCE - credibility - subject to findings of Master below - ND LEGISLATION CITED : Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 CASES CITED: n/a DECISION : 1) Appeal dismissed with costs. 2) Cross-appeal dismissed with costs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40126/01 SC 20083/99 PRIESTLEY JA STEIN JA IPP AJA

Tuesday, 27 November 2001 ALEXANDER v HEISE & ANOR

The appellant appeals from a decision of Master Harrison, in which it was held that neither of the respondents breached their duties of care to the appellant's late husband. The claim pursuant to the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897, arose out of the death of the appellant's husband, Ted Alexander, on 22 March 1996 due to a cerebral haemorrhage. The appellant had attended at the first respondent's surgery, he being a GP, and had organised an appointment for her husband. The second respondent was the first respondent's receptionist and also his wife. The appellant's husband had suffered an uncharacteristic and severe headache during the previous night and, as she was concerned for his health, she arranged an appointment for a full medical check up for the following week. The day before the appointment, however, the appellant found him unconscious and twelve days later he died of a grade V berry aneurism. The appellant argued that had her husband seen a doctor before he suffered the aneurism, his death could have been avoided.