Chandrasekaran v Western Sydney Local Health District (t/as Westmead Hospital)

The appeal concerned a dispute between Dr. Chandrasekaran and the Western Sydney Local Health District (trading as Westmead Hospital) regarding Dr. Chandrasekaran's appointment as a visiting medical officer. Dr. Chandrasekaran alleged breaches of contract, misleading and deceptive conduct, breach of confidence, and injurious falsehood. The appeal was heard by Gleeson, Leeming, and Adamson JJA of the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the judge at first instance had demonstrated apprehended bias or actual bias, and whether the findings regarding misleading or deceptive conduct, breach of contract, breach of confidence, and injurious falsehood were correct. Specifically, the court considered whether the Health District misrepresented the nature or location of Dr. Chandrasekaran's appointment, whether the Health District's discretion to determine work during the term of the locum agreement authorised termination, whether confidential information was received by the Health District, and whether statements made to the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Authority and the Health Care Complaints Commission involved malice. The court also considered whether an email inadvertently sent by a recruitment agency constituted a statement to a third party and was malicious, and whether the judge erred in refusing to re-open the case.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to conclude that the judge at first instance had decided the case other than on its legal or factual merits, nor that the judge had pre-judged the appellant's case or was not open to persuasion. Consequently, the claims of apprehended and actual bias were dismissed. Regarding the substantive claims, the court found that Dr. Chandrasekaran had confirmed her understanding of the locum role in contemporaneous communications, negating the claim of misleading or deceptive conduct. The court also found no evidence that the Health District had received confidential information. While the appeal was allowed in part, setting aside an order for $100 in favour of the appellant, the court otherwise dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings of the court below on the substantive claims and the refusal to re-open the case.