WALLER v JAMES [2013] NSWSC 497

WALLER v JAMES [2013] NSWSC 497

The defendant, while owing a qualified duty to ensure the plaintiffs had the opportunity to be informed about the hereditary aspects of ATD, did not cause or materially contribute to the harm suffered because Keeden's disabilities were found not to have been caused by inherited ATD; the claimed losses were too remote and not within the scope of duty or within reasonable foreseeability. The plaintiffs failed to establish the requisite causal connection between any breach and their claimed damages.

Parties
Plaintiff: Deborah Waller; Plaintiff: Lawrence Waller; Defendant: Christopher James
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the defendant
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Causation, Remoteness, Damages, Contributory Negligence, Medical Advice, IVF, Genetic Conditions, Informational Duties
Medical Negligence Common Law Civil Liability Duty of Care Breach of Duty Causation Remoteness Damages +5 more

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 5 Authorities cited 51 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deborah Waller

Plaintiff

Lawrence Waller

Plaintiff

Christopher James

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Principal Judgment / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant gynaecologist owed the plaintiffs a duty to inform or ensure they were informed of the hereditary aspects of antithrombin deficiency (ATD)
  2. 2 Whether the defendant breached that duty
  3. 3 Whether any breach caused the plaintiffs’ claimed losses (including birth and care of a disabled child)

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant, while owing a qualified duty to ensure the plaintiffs had the opportunity to be informed about the hereditary aspects of ATD, did not cause or materially contribute to the harm suffered because Keeden's disabilities were found not to have been caused by inherited ATD; the claimed losses were too remote and not within the scope of duty or within reasonable foreseeability. The plaintiffs failed to establish the requisite causal connection between any breach and their claimed damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendant

Orders

  • Judgment for the defendant
  • The plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs