Stubbs, Geoffrey v Cumberland, Una [1996] FCA 571

Stubbs, Geoffrey v Cumberland, Una [1996] FCA 571

The trial judge's finding that Dr. Stubbs breached the implied term of reasonable care and skill by causing excessive leg lengthening was open on the evidence; damages were appropriately assessed and should be increased to reflect special damages and interest.

Parties
Appellant/cross Respondent: Geoffrey Stubbs; Respondent/cross Appellant: Una Cumberland
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal From Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory / Judgment of Federal Court on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part; judgment varied to increase amount to $21,200; no order as to costs of cross-appeal.
Legal Topics
Implied Term of Reasonable Care and Skill, Assessment of Damages, Interest on Damages, Medical Negligence, Appellate Review of Factual Findings
Contracts Damages Implied Term of Reasonable Care and Skill Assessment of Damages Interest on Damages Medical Negligence Appellate Review of Factual Findings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey Stubbs

Appellant/cross Respondent

Una Cumberland

Respondent/cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal From Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory / Judgment of Federal Court on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in performing hip replacement surgery resulting in excessive leg lengthening
  2. 2 Appropriate assessment and quantum of damages for breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's finding that Dr. Stubbs breached the implied term of reasonable care and skill by causing excessive leg lengthening was open on the evidence; damages were appropriately assessed and should be increased to reflect special damages and interest.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part; judgment varied to increase amount to $21,200; no order as to costs of cross-appeal.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed, with costs.
  • Cross-appeal allowed in part; vary judgment to $21,200.