PRESCOTT-SMITH v SANDHU & ANOR [2001] NSWCA 43

PRESCOTT-SMITH v SANDHU & ANOR [2001] NSWCA 43

The appeal failed because the trial judge was entitled to reject the appellant's account of the administration of the epidural and the operation, and that credibility-based factual finding was not shown to be glaringly improbable or otherwise appellately impeachable. That finding disposed of the epidural and...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Negligence and Breach of Contract Proceedings Concerning Provision of Medical Services / Appeal From a Verdict and Judgment of Acting District Court Judge Mc Donell in Favour of the Defendants
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['medical Negligence' 'failure to Warn of Risks' 'epidural Anaesthetic' 'caesarean Section' 'causation and Damage' 'psychological Injury' 'appellate Review of Findings of Fact and Credibility' 'briginshaw Standard' 'jones V Dunkel Inference']
['negligence' 'contract' 'medical Law' 'evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['medical Negligence' 'failure to Warn of Risks' 'epidural Anaesthetic' 'caesarean Section' 'causation and Damage' 'psychological Injury' 'appellate Review of Findings of Fact and Credibility' 'briginshaw Standard' 'jones V Dunkel Inference']

Source-derived case record

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal in Negligence and Breach of Contract Proceedings Concerning Provision of Medical Services / Appeal From a Verdict and Judgment of Acting District Court Judge Mc Donell in Favour of the Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the appellant failed to prove that the epidural anaesthetic failed and that the operation continued while she experienced great pain contrary to her protestations.' 'Whether the respondents breached duties of care or contract by failing to administer or test the epidural anaesthetic properly, heed complaints, stop the procedure, administer a general anaesthetic, or provide counselling.' 'Whether the second respondent breached a duty by failing to advise the appellant before or after the operation that a longitudinal abdominal incision would be or had been made for medical reasons.' 'Whether the appellant proved psychological damage caused by any failure to warn or advise about the longitudinal incision.' "Whether the Court of Appeal should interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the trial judge was entitled to reject the appellant's account of the administration of the epidural and the operation, and that credibility-based factual finding was not shown to be glaringly improbable or otherwise appellately impeachable. That finding disposed of the epidural and counselling claims. The trial judge also did not accept that the appellant would have declined the caesarean section if advised about the incision options, or that she proved emotional stress or psychological trauma caused by the longitudinal scar or by any failure to advise that the incision was medically necessary.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']