Machado v Advanced Dermatology Group Pty Ltd [2013] NSWDC 85

Machado v Advanced Dermatology Group Pty Ltd [2013] NSWDC 85

The plaintiff failed because she did not prove that Advanced Dermatology Group Pty Ltd was the entity that treated her on 1 July 2009, and in any event she did not establish negligence. The Court accepted that AD Pty Ltd, through Mr Francis, provided the treatment, and found the documentary material relied on by the plaintiff insufficient to prove the contrary. The Court also found that the plaintiff had been warned of relevant risks and consented to treatment, and that, absent expert evidence identifying the required standard of care or showing inappropriate laser settings or operation, the burns and scarring did not of themselves establish breach of duty or causative negligence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence Claim for Personal Injury Damages Arising From Cosmetic Laser Facial Treatment / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the defendant.
Legal Topics
['cosmetic Laser Treatment' 'duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'res Ipsa Loquitur' 'consent and Warnings' 'correct Defendant' 'assessment of Damages']
['torts' 'negligence' 'personal Injury' 'damages'] ['cosmetic Laser Treatment' 'duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'res Ipsa Loquitur' 'consent and Warnings' 'correct Defendant' 'assessment of Damages']

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

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence Claim for Personal Injury Damages Arising From Cosmetic Laser Facial Treatment / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Advanced Dermatology Group Pty Ltd, rather than AD Pty Ltd, provided the plaintiff with the treatment on 1 July 2009.' "The nature and course of the plaintiff's treatment at the clinic and the plaintiff's understanding of the treatment and its risks." 'Whether the treatment was administered in breach of a duty of care within the meaning of s 5B, s 5C and s 5D of the Civil Liability Act 2002.' 'The assessment of damages if liability had been established.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed because she did not prove that Advanced Dermatology Group Pty Ltd was the entity that treated her on 1 July 2009, and in any event she did not establish negligence. The Court accepted that AD Pty Ltd, through Mr Francis, provided the treatment, and found the documentary material relied on by the plaintiff insufficient to prove the contrary. The Court also found that the plaintiff had been warned of relevant risks and consented to treatment, and that, absent expert evidence identifying the required standard of care or showing inappropriate laser settings or operation, the burns and scarring did not of themselves establish breach of duty or causative negligence.

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the defendant.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the defendant;' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;" 'The exhibits may be returned;' 'Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required.']