Australia: Restoring the Balance - The End of Loss of a Chance: Tabet v Gett [2010] HCA 12

Insurance Update
Last Updated: 23 April 2010
Article by Mark Williams and Catherine Elphick

The legal uncertainty that arose after the 2004 New South Wales Court of Appeal decision in Rufo v Hosking[1] has ended. In an unanimous decision, the High Court of Australia has held in Tabet v Gett[2] that damages are not available for the loss of a chance of a better medical outcome unless the plaintiff can prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he or she would have had a better outcome had the defendant not been negligent.


The case concerned the medical treatment of a six year old girl named Reema Tabet. Reema was admitted to hospital in 1991 after recovering from chickenpox. She was suffering headaches and nausea, and was vomiting. She came under the care of Dr Maurice Gett, a paediatrician. Dr Gett made a provisional diagnosis of post-chickenpox viral encephalitis.

Unfortunately, Reema later suffered a rapid deterioration in her neurological condition and had a seizure. A CT scan revealed a brain tumour. Reema underwent surgery to remove part of the tumour. She was subsequently diagnosed as having suffered irreversible brain damage. The damage had a number of causes. It was partly sustained when her condition had deteriorated. It was partly caused by the tumour itself (which had been growing for over two years). It was also partly a result of her operation and other treatment she had received to control the tumour.

The expert evidence that Reema adduced at trial supported a finding that Dr Gett should have arranged for her to have a CT scan before her condition had deteriorated. The evidence also supported a finding that, if Reema had had an earlier CT scan (and the tumour been revealed), treatment options were available to her that may have avoided the deterioration in her condition. The trial judge did not think Reema had proved on the balance of probabilities that she would not have suffered the brain damage if she had undergone the treatments. Despite this finding, however, applying the reasoning in Rufo v Hosking, the trial judge found that it was probable that Reema's decline contributed to her ultimate disabilities and assessed that contribution to be no greater than 25% of her damage. He then assessed that her loss of a chance of a better outcome (ie avoiding the damage which was referable to the deterioration) was 40%. The trial judge therefore found that Reema was entitled to 40% of 25% of the damages to which she would have been entitled if all of her brain damage was caused by Dr Gett's negligence.

Dr Gett appealed to the Court of Appeal. He argued that Reema had not proved on the balance of probabilities that she had suffered any brain damage as a result of not having had an earlier CT scan and the treatments she alleged she would have received.

After reviewing the expert evidence, the Court of Appeal held that Reema's loss of a chance of a better outcome ranged between 'speculative' and 'some'. It ultimately settled on a finding that Reema had lost only a 15% chance (as opposed to the trial judge's 40%) of avoiding the brain damage she complained of. This being the case, the Court of Appeal concluded that Reema had not proven on the balance of probabilities that she had suffered any brain damage as a result of Dr Gett's breach of duty to her.

Reema subsequently appealed to the High Court of Australia.

In the High Court

The question at the centre of Reema's appeal was whether the common law of Australia should recognise that the loss of a chance of a better medical outcome is actionable in damages. After considering the central question, the development of the common law in other countries and the expert evidence led at trial, Acting Chief Justice Gummow and Justices Hayne, Bell, Crennan and Kiefel all answered in the negative and dismissed Reema's appeal, providing separate reasons for their decision.

Redefining damage and causation

All five judges held that the adoption of the 'loss of a chance' as a basis for liability in personal injury cases would represent a major development in the common law. Their Honours observed that, if Reema's arguments were accepted, Dr Gett would be held liable even though what Reema had lost was only the possibility, not probability, that her brain damage would have been less serious than it was. This would shift the balance the law of negligence had previously created between the competing interests of plaintiffs and defendants and tip it in favour of plaintiffs. Their Honours did not consider there was any reason why the law should allow a reduced requirement for proving causation so that a plaintiff should have the benefit, and the defendant the detriment, of an easier burden of proof of actionable damage in negligence actions.

Applicable policy reasons

Justice Gummow noted that there was possibly a view, especially with respect to medical treatment, that the substitution of loss of a chance as an actionable damage instead of physical damage would assist in the maintenance of medical standards in circumstances where there was a less than 50% chance of a cure. However, he said that any such potential benefit to the public had to be weighed against, for example, the prospect of 'defensive medicine' being practised, with an emphasis on costly testing procedures in preference to a sequential deductive approach to diagnosis and treatment. Justice Crennan similarly found that policy considerations - including the prospect of encouraging defensive medicine, the impact of that on the Medicare system and private medical insurance schemes, and the potential increase in the cost of medical malpractice insurance - weighed against altering the present requirement of proof of causation in cases of medical negligence. Her Honour said that the change to the law that Reema proposed was so radical that it was the business of Parliament, not the common law.

Justice Kiefel acknowledged that Reema had suffered a dreadful injury, but similarly thought that her case did not provide a strong ground for changing the law. Her Honour said the change Reema was arguing for would paradoxically result in Dr Gett being held liable for damage which he almost certainly did not cause.

Had Reema proved she lost a chance anyway?

Justice Heydon also dismissed Reema's appeal. However, his Honour did so because there was no evidence to support a finding as to the percentage chance that Reema's brain damage could have been avoided. His Honour noted that the difference between Reema's percentage chance as found by the trial judge (a 40% chance of a better outcome) and the Court of Appeal (a 15% chance of a better outcome) showed that, in truth, the expert evidence led at trial did not enable the court to reach any conclusion as to whether Dr Gett's negligence had caused Reema to lose a chance of avoiding or reducing her brain damage. In the circumstances, Justice Heydon considered the central question before the High Court was not even a live issue because it assumed that the evidence supported some finding about the chance that Reema had lost. His Honour therefore did not consider it was necessary or desirable to embark on 'difficult and doubtful inquiries' in an attempt to answer it.


The High Court's decision is consistent with the reasoning in Amaca Pty Ltd v Ellis, The State of South Australia v Ellis and Millennium Inorganic Chemicals Ltd v Ellis[3] and re-affirms that the applicable (and only) standard of proof in negligence actions is the balance of probabilities.

Loss of chance claims in medical negligence litigation appear now to be a thing of the past. Plaintiffs should now only be awarded damages for the loss of a proven better outcome, not a percentage of that loss based on the probability (or improbability) of the outcome occurring. This stabilisation of the law will be of comfort not only to medical indemnity insurers, but also to the medical profession working in an already financially-strained healthcare system, which has limited capacity to manage 'defensive medicine'.


[1] (2004) 61 NSWLR 678

[2] [2010] HCA 12125

[3] [2010] HCA 5 decided on 3 March 2010

© DLA Phillips Fox

DLA Phillips Fox is one of the largest legal firms in Australasia and a member of DLA Piper Group, an alliance of independent legal practices. It is a separate and distinct legal entity. For more information visit

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.