Kadian v Richards

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Kadian, the plaintiff, brought a claim against Richards, the defendant, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained during a motor vehicle accident. The case turned on the issue of whether the plaintiff had waived the doctor-patient confidentiality by initiating litigation, which inherently put his health in question. The defendant argued that the proceedings should be stayed unless the plaintiff consented to an interview between his lawyers and the plaintiff's treating doctors. This necessitated a determination of the sources and content of the obligation of confidentiality, whether it was waived by the commencement of litigation, and the appropriate procedural response.

The court had to decide whether the plaintiff's decision to litigate constituted a waiver of the doctor-patient confidentiality, thereby permitting the defendant's legal team to interview the plaintiff's doctors. Additionally, the court had to consider the procedural implications of such an interview, including whether the plaintiff needed to be a party to any claim asserting a waiver of confidentiality and the onus of proof regarding such a waiver. The court also needed to evaluate whether a stay of proceedings was warranted under the circumstances.

The court found that the obligation of confidentiality between doctors and patients stemmed from common law and equity and was not automatically waived by the commencement of litigation. The court held that the plaintiff had not waived his right to confidentiality by initiating the lawsuit, and there was no requirement for the plaintiff to be a party to any claim concerning a waiver of that right. Furthermore, the court concluded that the onus of proof regarding the waiver of confidentiality lay with the party asserting it. The court determined that the proceedings should not be stayed unless the plaintiff consented to an interview with his treating doctors.

The final orders included a declaration that the plaintiff's right to doctor-patient confidentiality had not been waived by the initiation of litigation and that the proceedings should not be stayed unless the plaintiff consented to an interview with his treating doctors. The court also noted that the plaintiff was not required to be a party to any claim asserting a waiver of confidentiality.