A man who successfully sued his GP over a delayed cancer diagnosis had his damages cut by 35% because of what he did after the appointment. In Peterkin v Tadros (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1325, the NSW Supreme Court awarded Ross Peterkin $421,625.49. The judgment deals with how much responsibility he should carry, how to value his non-economic loss and whether he should get his costs.
Background
In August 2022, Mr Peterkin saw Dr Abram Tadros about symptoms including rectal bleeding. He had been living with his symptoms for nearly a year by then.
Dr Tadros did not ask how long the bleeding had been going on, even though he accepted that this was a fundamental question. He diagnosed a haemorrhoid he had not seen and did not offer a digital examination. He did give Mr Peterkin a pamphlet, which warned that bleeding put down to haemorrhoids can come from cancer.
Mr Peterkin was not diagnosed until May 2024. In an earlier judgment, Peterkin v Tadros [2026] NSWSC 1185, Sirtes J found Dr Tadros negligent and found that Mr Peterkin would probably have been diagnosed by February2023 with proper care. His Honour also found that Mr Peterkin had been contributorily negligent. This second judgment works out what that means in dollars.
Contributory negligence
Mr Peterkin argued that his damages should be reduced by no more than 10%, while Dr Tadros argued for at least 50%. The Court settled on 35%.
The question was what a reasonable person in Mr Peterkin’s position would have done, based on what he knew or should have known at the time (Civil Liability Act 2022 (NSW) s 5R(2)). Three things counted against him. He disregarded the pamphlet, he did not mention his returning symptoms at seven later consultations and he took 137 days to act on another doctor’s referral to a specialist. The Court said he should have acted within weeks.
Mr Peterkin said the original diagnosis had reassured him and the Court accepted that it did to some extent. The trouble was his own evidence. He described the examination as “very, very brief” and Dr Tadros’s response as “dismissive.” Someone who felt that way and had been given a warning about cancer would not have kept relying on that diagnosis once the symptoms came back.
He also argued that his delay in following up the referral had already been taken into account when the Court worked out when he would have been diagnosed, so counting it here would punish him twice. The Court disagreed, because those were separate questions about different periods. The first was what he would have done if he had been referred in August 2022. The second was whether what he actually did contributed to his loss.
Dr Tadros still carried most of the responsibility. His conduct was a significant departure from what is expected of a reasonable GP, and the August 2022 appointment was the first real chance to put Mr Peterkin on a path to diagnosis.
Non-economic loss
The Court assessed Mr Peterkin’s non-economic loss at 50% of a most extreme case, or $414,500. Dr Tadros had proposed 35%, but that only covered the loss of about 4.75 years of life expectancy.
The Court was careful to compensate only the harm caused by the delay. Even with a diagnosis in February 2023, Mr Peterkin would still have needed neoadjuvant therapy and surgery with a temporary ileostomy and the cancer might have come back five or six years later. Because of that delay, he also needed a colostomy before treatment, his bowel was perforated and the cancer recurred in his pelvis. He now has a permanent colostomy and incurable disease.
Sirtes J also acknowledged the “dread and bitterness” of a young father facing the end of his life.
Damages
The parties agreed on every other head of damage, including $95,000 for loss of capacity to provide domestic services and $30,000 for gratuitous care. Total damages came to $648,654.60. after the 35% reduction, Mr Peterkin was left with $421,625.49.
Costs
Because the judgment was under $500,000, Mr Peterkin could only get his costs if it was warranted to run the case in the Supreme Court rather than the District Court (Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 42.34).
The Court decided that it was. Causation was complex and the matter needed to be expedited. His oncologist had also said that, without the negligence, he would have had an 80% chance of surviving 10 years. The Court did not accept that, but Mr Peterkin was entitled to rely on the opinion when he started the case and he could reasonably have expected more than the District Court’s $1.25 million limit. Dr Tadros was ordered to pay his costs, although either party had 14 days to seek a different order.
Peterkin is a reminder that proving a doctor was negligent does not settle how much a patient will recover. Ignoring a warning, staying quiet about symptoms or sitting on a referral can all reduce a claim, even where the doctor is mostly responsible.
More information about this decision can be found here: Peterkin v Tadros (No 2) – NSW Caselaw
The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.