On a Small Claims Court appeal, the appellant challenged the pre-trial dismissal of a $25,000 medical negligence claim arising from alleged negligent treatment causing loss of vision in one eye.
The appeal judge held that the deputy judge improperly treated a Rule 12.02 motion as a summary judgment motion and erred in dismissing the claim based on the appellant's failure to produce expert reports within timelines set at settlement conferences.
The court found the pleading itself was not inflammatory, a waste of time, a nuisance, or an abuse of process, and that dismissal on this basis denied natural justice.
The appeal was granted and the matter remitted to Small Claims Court for a hearing.
