Mid-City Skin Cancer & Laser Centre v Zahedi-Anarak

In the matter of Mid-City Skin Cancer & Laser Centre v Zahedi-Anarak, the primary dispute involved the ownership and possession of medical records, specifically pathology reports, obtained by Dr Zahedi-Anarak for patients during his employment with Mid-City. The case was heard by the Federal Circuit Court, which had to determine the rights of the parties in relation to these records.

The court had to address several legal issues. Firstly, it needed to determine whether Dr Zahedi-Anarak owned the pathology reports he obtained for patients during his employment. Secondly, the court considered whether there were implied contractual obligations of confidentiality on Dr Zahedi-Anarak, which would bind him post-employment. Additionally, the court examined whether such an obligation could be assigned to Mid-City and if so, what remedies would be available to Mid-City as an assignee.

The court found that Dr Zahedi-Anarak did not own the pathology reports as they were obtained in his capacity as an employee of Mid-City. Regarding the implied obligations of confidentiality, the court held that Dr Zahedi-Anarak was bound by such an obligation during and after his employment. This obligation was inherently assignable, and Mid-City, as the assignee, could enforce it. The court also considered the appropriate remedy for the breach of this obligation, determining that an account of profits would be suitable, taking into account the expenditure of time, effort, and skill by Mid-City. The decision of the Court of Appeal, affirmed by the High Court, was binding on the Federal Circuit Court.

Ultimately, the court ordered Dr Zahedi-Anarak to return all patient pathology reports to Mid-City and awarded Mid-City an account of profits as damages for the breach of confidentiality.