The Background
At trial, the Plaintiff (Mr Chester) claimed that in 2009 the WA Country Health Service (WACHS) was negligent in failing to treat him as having suffered a dislocation of his acromioclavicular joint (rather than subluxation) and failing to make or recommend an urgent review by an orthopaedic surgeon. Mr Chester claimed that, had WACHS not been negligent as alleged, he would have undergone early reduction surgery and had a better outcome.
The trial judge dismissed Mr Chester’s claim (decision linked here).
Mr Chester appealed the trial judge’s decision. Whilst the “grounds of appeal were poorly drafted and did not identify with clarity the errors of law or fact said to have been made by the learned trial judge”, the Court of Appeal held that the essence of the appeal was a failure to provide adequate reasons for concluding Mr Chester failed to establish a causal connection between his injuries and the failure by WACHS to recommend orthopaedic review.
Outcome
In allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge:
- failed to make a finding on breach, noting that “the question of causation is not an abstract one” and it is necessary to identify a particular negligent act or omission on the part of a defendant to properly address the question of causation;
- failed to reach a finding on whose expert evidence he preferred in relation to the effect of the excision of the distal end of Mr Chester’s clavicle (which may have been avoided by early reduction surgery) and whether it was the cause of Mr Chester’s ongoing left shoulder pain;
- failed to address the specific question of whether Mr Chester would have undergone early surgery, noting that it was not “sufficient to identify matters that may or might prevent such a finding without reaching an ultimate conclusion to that effect”.
The Court of Appeal ordered a retrial ‘as deplorable as that result always is’. The Court of Appeal was unable to consider and decide the matter for itself, as there were contestable issues on the merits which the trial judge did not adequately address and which the Court of Appeal was unable to determine merely from the record. The issues for determination required the natural advantages of a trial judge having seen and heard from all the witnesses.
Implications
This decision highlights the paramount requirement for reasons to disclose the intellectual process leading to a decision in sufficient detail, with sufficient certainty, to enable a litigant to know why they were unsuccessful.
Importantly, not every appellable error from inadequate reasons will result in a retrial. It is necessary for an appeal court to consider both the adequacy of the primary reasons and also whether the only conclusion open on the evidence available at trial was the conclusion reached by the trial judge.
To read the full decision in Chester v WA Country Health Service [2022] WASCA 57, click here.