//
[2025] ACTSC 225
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of the ACT
2025-05-30
McCallum CJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: Maguire v Kuzniarz Citation: [2025] ACTSC 225 Hearing Date: 30 May 2025 Decision Date: 30 May 2025 Before: McCallum CJ Decision: (1) Leave to commence proceedings pursuant to s79(1) of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act. (2) The proceedings to be stayed until 8 December 2025 to allow the parties to comply with requirements of Chapter 5 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act (2002). (3) The First Directions Hearing set down for 10 June 2025 at 9:30am be vacated. (4) The matter be listed for directions on 8 December 2025 at 9:30am. (5) The costs incidental to the Application in Proceeding dated 30 April 2025 be costs in the cause. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – claim of damages for medical negligence – where proceedings commenced before completion of requirements under Ch 5 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT); where proceedings commenced in order to avoid expiration of limitation period Legislation Cited: Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), Ch 5 Parties: Owen Maguire (Plaintiff) Maciek Kuzniarz (Defendant) Representation: Counsel D Richards (Plaintiff) L Gooneratne (Defendant) Solicitors United Legal (Plaintiff) HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Defendant) File Number: SC 140 of 2025 McCALLUM CJ: EX TEMPORE REASONS (REVISED)
These are proceedings for damages for personal injuries arising out of an alleged act of medical negligence. The plaintiff claims to have suffered significant injuries, including migraines and light sensitivity, as a result of the act of the defendant ophthalmologist of shining a bright light in his eye during a medical examination. No expert report in support of the allegation that that was negligent has been obtained or served.
The proceedings were commenced on 22 April 2025, to obviate the risk of expiration of a limitation period. The examination having happened on 27 April 2022 and the plaintiff having first instructed his current solicitor on 7 April 2025, the defendant consents to the grant of leave to commence proceedings notwithstanding the failure to comply with the pre-trial requirements of Ch 5 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT).
The plaintiff also sought an order that the need for him to comply with sub-paragraph 5(e) of Practice Direction No 2 of 2014 be dispensed with. That clause of the practice direction imposes a requirement for an expert report to be served together with a statement of claim in a claim for medical negligence. I am not prepared to make an order in those terms. Indeed, I consider that, in the circumstances of this case, it would have been preferable for the plaintiff to obtain such a report prior to the commencement of proceedings.
Notwithstanding that reservation, I am prepared to grant the leave sought because of the obvious risk of the expiration of the limitation period, had the proceedings not been commenced when they were. I note further that, as I have already indicated, the defendant consents to the grant of leave.
Orders
I certify that the preceding five [5] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of her Honour Chief Justice. Associate: Date:
Maguire
Kuzniarz [2025] ACTSC 225