Articles
Gett v Tabet
Authors: Paul O’BrienThe High Court of Australia is to hear an appeal from the decision in Gett v Tabet. In the judgment under appeal, the Court of Appeal unanimously overruled as ‘clearly wrong’, the line of medical negligence cases which permitted a plaintiff to recover damages for the lost chance of a better medical outcome, even where it was probable that the better outcome would not have occurred. The outcome of the High Court appeal is eagerly awaited. In the meantime a summary of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Gett v Tabetis provided in the form of a detailed case note.
Significant cases, legislation or articles referred to
- Gett v Tabet [2009] NSWCA 76
- Rufo v Hosking [2004] NSWCA 391; 61 NSWLR 678
- Gavalas v Singh [2001] VSCA 23; 3 VR 404
- Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118
- Guest v Nominal Defendant [2006] NSWCA 77
- Alphapharm [2002] HCA 59; 212 CLR 411
- Biogen (1997) RPC 1
- New South Wales v Burton [2008] NSWCA 319
- McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1
- Chappel v Hart [1998] HCA 55; 195 CLR 232
- Betts v Whittingslowe [1945] HCA 31; 71 CLR 637
- Roads and Traffic Authority v Royal [2008] HCA 19, 82 ALJR 870
- Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 20; 169 CLR 638
- Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum [1994] HCA 4; 179 CLR 332
- Naxakis v Western General Hospital [1999] HCA 22; 197 CLR 269
- Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002] UKHL 22; [2003] 1 AC 32
- Gregg v Scott [2005] UKHL 2; [2005] 2 AC 176
- Mallett v McMonagle [1970] AC 166
- CES v Superclinics (Australia) (1995) 38 NSWLR 47
- Commonwealth v Aman Aviation Pty Limited [1991] HCA 54; 174 CLR 64