HOLLIDAY and ANOR v CURTIN [1997] NSWCA 152

HOLLIDAY and ANOR v CURTIN [1997] NSWCA 152

The evidence did not establish the existence of a persisting abnormality which should reasonably have put the defendants on notice that they should require investigations for cancer or advise the plaintiff to have such investigations. Therefore, there was no ground for concluding that the first and third defendants were negligent.

Parties
Plaintiff: Kathryn Ann Curtin; First Defendant: Dr Louise Holliday; Second Defendant: Dr Maree Farley; Third Defendant: Dr Phillip Clifton-Bligh
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 1997
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Trial Appeal Decision
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Doctor Patient Relationship, Liability for Detection of Breast Cancer, Interference With Findings of Fact, Credibility of Witnesses
Negligence Medicine Duty of Care Doctor Patient Relationship Liability for Detection of Breast Cancer Interference With Findings of Fact Credibility of Witnesses

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kathryn Ann Curtin

Plaintiff

Dr Louise Holliday

First Defendant

Dr Maree Farley

Second Defendant

Dr Phillip Clifton-Bligh

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Trial Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether findings of trial Judge were inconsistent with objectively proven facts or glaringly improbable
  2. 2 Whether there was a palpable discrete lump that should have put treating doctors on notice of need for investigation
  3. 3 Whether signs present should have alerted the doctors to advise investigations for cancer

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish the existence of a persisting abnormality which should reasonably have put the defendants on notice that they should require investigations for cancer or advise the plaintiff to have such investigations. Therefore, there was no ground for concluding that the first and third defendants were negligent.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment below set aside except the judgment for the second defendant.
  • Judgment entered for the first and third defendants against the plaintiff.