CDC Clinics Pty Ltd v Daemolzekr [2022] VSCA 54 (on AUSTLII).
The respondent attended the applicant’s clinic (the ‘CDC Clinic’) in order to undergo laser treatment to remove tattoos from each of her forearms. A County Court judge found that the scarring of the respondent’s forearms in the area treated by the applicant resulted from burns sustained in the course of her treatment, during which too high a fluence[2] was applied to her tattoos. The applicant sought leave to appeal from this decision.
The critical finding that the scarring resulted from the laser treatment turned on an assessment of an array of oral evidence, including that of the respondent. The Court was not satisfied that the findings of the primary judge were in error and certainly not ‘glaringly improbable’.
Leave to appeal was ultimately refused for that reason and as two evidentiary arguments raised by the appellant were not accepted.
[BillMaddensWordpress #1969]