Legal clarification of “loss of chance of a better outcome” in Australia

Neera Bhatia and James Tibballs
Med J Aust 2012; 197 (8): . || doi: 10.5694/mja12.10579
Published online: 15 October 2012

To the Editor: In deference to Grattan-Smith,1 defendant doctors are clearly advantaged and plaintiff patients disadvantaged by the High Court’s decision in Tabet v Gett,2 because a patient must now prove on the balance of probability (> 50%), not possibility (< 50%) as before, that negligence by the doctor caused harm.

  • Neera Bhatia1
  • James Tibballs2

  • 1 Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC.
  • 2 Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, VIC.


Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.