In passing I came across the following very good explanation of how a Judge is to weigh up and decided who to believe when 2 witnesses (in our context usually patient v doctor) give conflicting evidence on an important topic.

As well explained, this does not necessarily involve a conclusion someone is lying. In my

As yet further proof that the most humble of circumstances can be made complex by the Law, the High Court recently (7 March 2012) handed down its decision in the “Big W hot chip case” (Strong v Woolworths [2012] HCA 5).

The case concerned a claimant, the aptly named (given the need to litigate

 The Limitation Act 2005 came into effect in Nov 2005.  Surprisingly, for non-lawyers anyway, there remains a fair amount of uncertainty as to such new scheme’s effect in several important respects, particularly:

  • in terms of the time for claims alleging medical negligence.  This uncertainty is not as to the overall time (which in most case

I recently sat in to watch several key portions of a well-publicised medical negligence trial, held in Perth in late 2011.

As with most such cases, each party called and relied upon leading expert medical witnesses, to comment on the quality of medical care and advice the patient received. In this case, because of the

 If I had to pick one legislative provision which has resulted in more gross unfairness than any other, over the period of my career, its a ‘no-brainer:’ section 47A of the Limitation Act 1935.

Section 47A in the context I have seen it most regularly, set a time limit for claims to be made against public

I note with interest the Court of Appeal’s decision in Nigam v Harm [2011] WASCA 211.

Whilst a case concerning a negligence action against a firm of solicitors, the important aspects of the case predominantly related to medical negligence claims.  

It was alleged the relevant firm of solicitors had been negligent in failing to:

I gave a talk a couple of weeks ago for the College of Surgeons, highlighting the key principles governing the obligations owed by medical and other expert witness’ to the court + set out in the District Court of Western Australia’s Code of Conduct.  Emphasis was placed upon the trust and reliance the Court places

Maintaining the sobering record of Plaintiff claims based on informed consent, is a recent South Australian case, Coombes v Katsaros [2011] SADC 93.

The claim concerned alleged complex regional pain syndrome ("CRPS") said to have arisen following hand surgery.

The key to the Plaintiff’s claim was his assertion that he ought to have been warned

Thanks to the Australian Lawyers Alliance’s weekly newsletter to members, for bring this recent case to my attention:

Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd v Motor Accidents Authority of NSW [2010] NSWSC 833 (30 July 2010), is a recent case in which the NSW Court of Appeal per Barr AJ overturned a damages claim of more