What happened
Peterkin consulted Tadros on 23 August 2022 about rectal symptoms and bleeding, without an adequate history of their duration, further investigation or referral. Cancer was diagnosed in May 2024. The Court examined the later treatment course alongside the patient’s failure to report returning symptoms and delay in acting on a subsequent referral.
The issues
The central questions were when proper care would probably have produced a diagnosis and how earlier treatment would have changed the consequences of an existing cancer. Immediate action by the patient could not simply be assumed, and the oncology experts disagreed about the effect of earlier diagnosis on prognosis.
The court's decision
The GP’s s 5O defence failed because the supporting opinion rested on incorrect factual assumptions. The Court found probable diagnosis around February 2023 with proper care, and that delay increased operative perforation risk and contributed to early recurrence, reducing life expectancy by about 4.75 years. It also found contributory negligence, leaving its proportion and damages to the consequential judgment.
Understanding the figures
The 29 September 2026 judgment made no final monetary award. Peterkin v Tadros (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1325, delivered on 28 October, assessed historical AUD damages at A$648,654.60 and reduced them by 35% to A$421,625.49, with costs separate. The total already deducted actual post-injury earnings and included A$414,500 for non-economic loss.
What this case shows
Proof of deficient care did not make every consequence of the cancer compensable. The Court reconstructed a likely diagnostic pathway using the patient’s actual behaviour and waiting-time evidence, then identified additional harm caused by the delay through the expert evidence.
Why another case may differ
This was an individual medical negligence claim under the Civil Liability Act 2002; the GP did not cause the underlying cancer. The consequential judgment gave no apportionment weight to the patient’s pre-consultation delay and excluded consequences that would have occurred even with earlier diagnosis. Different tumour biology, referral behaviour or waiting-time evidence could alter causation and apportionment.
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? →