Babic v De Souza [2019] NSWCATAP 279

Babic v De Souza [2019] NSWCATAP 279

The findings of the primary member were consistent with the evidence; there was no independent expert evidence to contradict the respondents; no causation was established between the anaesthetic procedure and dental bridge failure; the respondents exercised due care and skill; the appeal did not satisfy grounds to grant leave as findings were not against the weight of evidence nor was there a substantial miscarriage of justice.

Parties
Appellant: Miro Babic; First Respondent: Cyrus Ian De Souza; Second Respondent: AME Properties PL atf AME Property Trust t/as St George Private Hospital
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed, extension of time granted, leave refused, costs awarded to respondents
Legal Topics
Consumer Guarantees, Due Care and Skill, Clinical Services, Breach of Statutory Duty, Vicarious Liability, Proportionate Liability, Costs Orders
Consumer Law Tort Law Consumer Guarantees Due Care and Skill Clinical Services Breach of Statutory Duty Vicarious Liability Proportionate Liability +1 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 6 Authorities cited 35 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miro Babic

Appellant

Cyrus Ian De Souza

First Respondent

AME Properties PL atf AME Property Trust t/as St George Private Hospital

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether anaesthetic services were supplied with due care and skill under ACL s 60
  2. 2 Whether breach of consumer guarantees occurred
  3. 3 Causation between alleged breach and dental damage

Ratio Decidendi

The findings of the primary member were consistent with the evidence; there was no independent expert evidence to contradict the respondents; no causation was established between the anaesthetic procedure and dental bridge failure; the respondents exercised due care and skill; the appeal did not satisfy grounds to grant leave as findings were not against the weight of evidence nor was there a substantial miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed, extension of time granted, leave refused, costs awarded to respondents

Orders

  • Extension of time to appeal is granted to and including date of lodgement of notice of appeal.
  • Leave to Appeal is refused.