Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 26 AUGUST 2026

Campbell Bht Mammoliti v Ritchie [2026] NSWSC 754

A New South Wales Supreme Court case examines the challenges of pursuing a medical negligence claim more than 20 years after surgery, where the plaintiff's credibility was severely undermined during 14 days of cross-examination. The judgment addresses critical issues surrounding limitation periods, the requirement for cogent explanations of delay, and the evidentiary burden of establishing disability or incapacity to suspend statutory time limits.

AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Background

Campbell bht Mammoliti v Ritchie [2026] NSWSC 754 concerned a medical negligence claim brought against bariatric surgeon Dr James Ritchie arising from a biliopancreatic diversion (BPD) procedure performed on 9 March 1999. The plaintiff alleged that the surgery and subsequent post-operative management caused a range of physical and psychiatric conditions, including micronutrient and vitamin deficiencies, cognitive impairment, behavioural disturbances and psychological injury.

The proceedings involved a lengthy hearing before Weinstein J. Evidence was heard over 24 days, the plaintiff was cross-examined for 14 days, and 12 experts gave evidence. A substantial issue throughout the case was the plaintiff’s credibility and the reliability of his account when compared with contemporaneous medical and documentary records.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from