Lee v Smith - [2005] FMCA 1013

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LEE v SMITH & ORS

[2005] FMCA 1013

HUMAN RIGHTS – Sex discrimination – declaration for non–party production pursuant to s.45(1) Federal Magistrates Act 1999 set aside.

Federal Magistrates Act 1999, s.45(1)

Applicant:

CASSANDRA LEKEI LEE

1^st Respondent:

AUSTIN SMITH

2^nd Respondent:

RODERICK HOMER

3^rdRespondent:

BERNARD L DONCHI

4^th Respondent:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

File Number:

BRG204 of 2004

Judgment of:

Coker FM

Hearing date:

7 June 2005

Delivered at:

Cairns

Delivered on:

7 June 2005

REPRESENTATION

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Wettenhall Silva

Solicitor for the 1^st Respondent:

Carew Lawyers

Solicitor for the 2^nd 3^rd and 4^th Respondents:

Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

That the Order made on 4 May 2005 relating to the discovery of all medical records, prescriptions, medical certificates, invoices, medical reports, diary records, appointment records, correspondence, Medicare records and any other documentation in the possession or control of Dr Trott including records of Paul Trott Pty Ltd be set aside.
That there be no future report able to be relied upon from Dr Trott without leave first granted by the Court.
That the costs of all parties be reserved.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
CAIRNS

BRG204 of 2004

CASSANDRA LEKEI LEE

Applicant

And

AUSTIN SMITH, RODERICK HOMER, BERNARD L DONCHI and COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 4 May 2005, I made orders pursuant to section 45(1) of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 which were to the effect that the Court made a declaration that non-party discovery was appropriate, in the interests of the administration of justice.
Pursuant to that declaration, I then made orders under order 15A, rule 8 of the Federal Court Rules, to the effect that Dr Paul Trott, as well as a considerable number of other medical practitioners and associated medical persons, provide to the Court information, including medical records, prescriptions, medical certificates, invoices, medical reports, diary records, appointment records, correspondence, Medicare records and any other documentation in their possession or control relating to medical appointments the applicant had had with those various medical professionals.
Dr Trott almost immediately made contact with the Court, but also with the legal representatives for the respondents and the legal representatives for the applicant, Ms Lee. In a letter of 5 May 2004, Dr Trott, in writing to Blake Dawson Waldron Lawyers, legal representatives for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents, said:
In reference to your letter dated 21 April 2005 regarding the Notice of Motion in the Court asking the Court to order that I disclose documents and then the particulars of them, I would like to object to the production of the documents as requested.
Dr Trott then goes on to refer to the concerns that he has in respect of the effect upon Ms Lee, his patient, should he comply as he is, of course, lawfully required to do with those directions.
He goes on a little later in his letter to say:
Ms Lee has been…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lee v Smith

Details

AGLC: Lee v Smith [2005] FMCA 1013
Case: [2005] FMCA 1013
Decision Date: 7 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lee v Smith was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from a personal injury claim where Lee sought damages from Smith. The primary contention in this matter involved the discovery of medical records and other documentation held by Dr Trott, a medical practitioner. Lee sought access to these records to support their claim, while Smith opposed the release of the documents on the grounds of patient confidentiality and relevance to the case.

The court was required to determine whether the order mandating the disclosure of the medical records was appropriate and whether it was necessary to grant future reports from Dr Trott without prior leave from the Court. The central legal issues involved balancing the principles of open justice, the right to privacy, and the relevance and necessity of the medical records to the proceedings.

The court found that the order for the discovery of medical records was overly broad and did not sufficiently consider the privacy and confidentiality rights of the patient. The court was also concerned about the potential for irrelevant information to be disclosed. Consequently, the court decided to set aside the order for the discovery of medical records. Additionally, the court ruled that any future reports from Dr Trott would require prior leave from the Court to ensure they are relevant and necessary for the proceedings. The court reserved the costs of all parties for further consideration.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Order made on 4 May 2005 relating to the discovery of all medical records, prescriptions, medical certificates, invoices, medical reports, diary records, appointment records, correspondence, Medicare records and any other documentation in the possession or control of Dr Trott including records of Paul Trott Pty Ltd be set aside.

That there be no future report able to be relied upon from Dr Trott without leave first granted by the Court.

That the costs of all parties be reserved.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.