Chapter 2 - LexisNexis

• Dragica Ljubic v Sydney Robert Armellin [2009] ACTSC 21. Finding oftrespass in that the defendant did not have the consent of the plaintiff toremove her ovaries in the context of a hysterectomy.• Kent -v- Edwards [2009] WADC 5. Plaintiff alleged trespass in the context ofbiopsy. Trespass not found.• Lee v Fairbrother [2009] NSWDC 192. Sexual relationship between generalpractitioner and patient gave rise to award of damages for breach of duty, notassault: see [42] – [43]. However, Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) did notapply by reason of the ‘other sexual misconduct’ aspect of the exclusion insection 3B(1)(a).15.21 Intentional torts in medical cases• Breslin & Ors v McKenna & Ors (Omagh Bombing case) [2009] NIQB 50.Comment at [272] to the effect that where the defendant’s liability is fortrespass to the person, issues of remoteness of damage do not arise: ‘….Since Ihave concluded that the liability of the defendants is based upon trespass, anintentional tort, I do not consider that any issue of remoteness arises (seeWainwright v Home Office [2004] 2 AC 406 and Clerk and Lindsell 19thedition paragraph 2-110). I do not intend to rehearse the detail of the medicalreports or the accounts given to me of the enormous difficulties a number ofthose involved had in coping with the consequences of this bomb. For manythe effects are catastrophic and their lives will never be the same.’Return to table of contents