A court has dismissed a compensation law firm’s request to inspect a Brisbane hospital on the basis it would be a “fishing expedition”.
A registered theatre nurse brought a personal injuries claim against the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital for injuries she allegedly sustained while adjusting the height of a Mayo surgical stand.
In the 18 months since the proceedings were filed in the Queensland Supreme Court, the “live issues” have been the suitability and safety of the Mayo stand that was present at the time of the alleged injuries.
However, the hospital said it could not identify the stand used at the time and pushed back on a request to inspect “random” machines.
In response to a request from her solicitors at Littles Lawyers, the hospital said: “We suggest that if anyone would be able to identify the type of mayo stand that was in use at the time, it should be your client.”
Nine weeks later, the solicitors filed a cross-application under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 to permit the nurse and an ergonomics expert to inspect a Mayo stand at the hospital.
In his decision, Justice Paul Freeburn said what seemed to be proposed was that the nurse would be shown various Mayo stands; would identify the one that caused the injuries; and the expert would then examine it for suitability, possible defects, and maintenance.
He said it was “incredible and surprising” the nurse and her solicitors have not identified the type of stand, “let alone the unsafe aspect of the Mayo stand or the lapse in maintenance” at the core of the case.
Justice Freeburn identified three issues with the request, starting with the underlying requirement that pleadings must specify facts, “not mere assertions the party hopes may later be shown to be factual”.
“The second is that one of the hallmarks of the legal profession is that, as officers of the court, lawyers do not make unsubstantiated allegations. That ethical rule is reinforced in a number of ways,” he said.
On the third, Justice Freeburn said proceedings must be prompt.
“That purpose can hardly be achieved by filing and serving a pleading which does not reflect the facts but instead represents a rather rudimentary assessment of what the party hopes to prove to be the facts at some time in the future,” Justice Freeburn said.
Justice Freeburn found there would be no utility in allowing the inspection to take place.
“The best that can be said is that, if the inspection goes well, [the nurse] may find some evidence that assists her case,” Justice Freeburn said.
“To allow the inspection would be to assist a fishing expedition.”
The case: Thomas v State of Queensland [2025] QSC 242.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
