What happened
The plaintiff underwent cosmetic procedures including breast augmentation by the defendant in 2014 and experienced an unsatisfactory appearance, pain, restricted movement and emotional distress. Subsequent treatment and corrective surgery were required, and medical and occupational therapy evidence described restrictions at work and at home. She remained employed in nursing but could no longer perform some patient procedures to her former capacity.
The issues
The defendant did not participate and liability had already been established by default judgment, leaving quantum for assessment. The issues under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) included non-economic loss, impaired earning capacity despite continuing work, treatment expenses and future domestic assistance.
The court's decision
The judge accepted the plaintiff's evidence as credible and compelling and recognised continuing pain, appearance-related distress and work restrictions. Non-economic loss was assessed at 40% of a most extreme case, with buffers for lost earning capacity and future assistance contributing to judgment for AUD 435,000. Costs were ordered against the defendant unless otherwise ordered, and the plaintiff's solicitor had to certify that professional fees for the wasted initial listing were not charged to her.
Understanding the figures
The historical AUD 435,000 judgment comprised AUD 282,000 non-economic loss, AUD 70,000 economic loss, AUD 5,000 future expenses, AUD 60,000 future domestic assistance and AUD 18,000 past expenses. No past gratuitous assistance was claimed; the AUD 60,000 addressed future paid help. Costs were separately ordered and actual recovery is unverified.
What this case shows
Employment at the time of assessment did not answer whether reduced capacity would produce financial loss. For domestic assistance, the court separately considered the future need for paid help rather than assuming that family members would provide unpaid support indefinitely.
Why another case may differ
This was an assessment after default judgment, rather than a defended determination of professional negligence. The figures cannot simply be transferred to another operation; the patient's actual work restrictions, treatment and assistance evidence mattered. The decision does not establish whether the judgment was collected or met by insurance.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →