Forder v Hutchinson

[2005] VSCA 281

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › Functions of appellate court
3. › Trial judge's findings of fact
4. › Inadequate findings
5. › Demeanour of witnesses not determinative
6. › Whether appellate intervention justified
1. Evidence
2. › Privilege
3. › Statutory privilege
4. › Health Services (Conciliation and Review) Act 1987 (Vic)
5. › Whether letter to registration board privileged under s 32
6. › Whether information 'gained because of' designated position
1. Evidence
2. › Expert evidence
3. › Qualifications of expert
4. › Whether professor of chiropractic qualified to opine on osteopathic use of chiropractic techniques
1. Negligence
2. › Causation
3. › Medical causation
4. › Whether causal connection between spinal manipulation and physical injury
5. › Inference from totality of evidence where expert opinion limited to possibility

Quick Take

A letter sent by a health practitioner to a registration board in response to a complaint is not privileged under s 32 of the Health Services (Conciliation and Review) Act 1987 (Vic), because sending information is not 'gaining information' within the meaning of that section. A professor of chiropractic who teaches chiropractic techniques to osteopathic students is qualified to give expert evidence on the standard of care expected of an osteopath performing spinal manipulation. Where medical opinion evidence goes no higher than that an event is a possible cause of a condition, causation may still be inferred from the totality of the evidence including temporal relationship, absence of prior disability, and absence of alternative cause.