Event and Time
Event Description
- The case revolves around applications for leave to appeal against a decision by the District Court concerning claims for damages due to medical negligence from Mr. Leslie Blackstock, a former doctor.
- Plaintiffs Ms. Rachael Clark and Ms. Linda Stevens alleged negligence during their breast augmentation surgeries carried out by Mr. Blackstock.
- Plaintiffs sought leave to bring claims against Mr. Blackstock's insurer, Avant Insurance, citing the Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017 (NSW).
Application and Claims
- The plaintiffs filed applications for leave under section 5 of the Third Party Claims Act to proceed against Avant.
- Their argument was based on the assertion that the relevant insurance policy with Avant was applicable to their claims.
Judicial Decisions
- The primary judge, Kearns ADCJ, dismissed the applications for leave, ruling that the plaintiffs' claims were made prior to the relevant policy period, thereby not covered by the insurance.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Plaintiffs' Claims:
- Asserted negligence by Mr. Blackstock in performing surgeries in 2012, 2014, and 2016. - Claimed that notices sent in 2019 did not constitute a claim because they were notifications of intent to claim, not demands. - Contended that there was no evidence the notices were received, thus no claim was made against him.
- Defendant's Arguments (Avant Insurance):
- Argued the plaintiffs could not establish an arguable case that the insurance policy responded to the claim because the demand was “first made” before the effective policy period. - Claimed the 2019 letters constituted a valid demand, negating the plaintiffs' argument regarding notification and timing.