Avsar v Westland Healthcare Limited

[2007] HCATrans 567

[2007] HCATrans 567

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Perth  No P8 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

JENNIFER PATRICIA AVSAR

Applicant

and

WESTLAND HEALTHCARE LIMITED

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 3 OCTOBER 2007, AT 9.36 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant, as administratrix of the estate of her late mother, commenced an action against the respondent arising out of the alleged negligence of the respondent in administering an incorrect dosage of insulin to the applicant's mother, allegedly causing her death.  In the District Court of Western Australia the applicant sought to add Fremantle Hospital as a defendant to the action, and to amend the capacity in which the applicant sued as a plaintiff to enable her to sue in her personal capacity.  Sleight DCJ refused either to add the hospital as a defendant or to allow the applicant to amend the capacity in which she sued.  

In the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia the applicant sought leave to appeal those interlocutory decisions, and also leave to appeal with respect to certain programming orders made by Sleight DCJ.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal.  If the application to join Fremantle Hospital at this late stage were granted, the trial of the preliminary issue would be delayed to such an extent as to be against the public interest.  The decision to refuse the applicant leave to amend the capacity in which she sued was not wrong or attended by sufficient doubt to justify the grant of leave.  Further, the remainder of the programming orders were not wrong or attended by sufficient doubt to warrant a grant of leave.

The application for leave to appeal does not advance any question of law that would justify the intervention of this Court.  No question of principle arises from the decision of the Court of Appeal, which concerned matters of practice and procedure.  There are no prospects of success on appeal to this Court.  The necessary extension of time is granted but special leave is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.  I publish the disposition signed by Justice Kiefel and myself.

AT 9.39 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED