Oakes v Alfred Health

[2020] VCC 1643

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CI-15-06046

WILLIAM OAKES	Plaintiff
v
ALFRED HEALTH	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Judge Pillay
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 October 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 October  2020 (Oral Ruling)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Oakes v Alfred Health
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VCC 1643

REASONS FOR RULING
---

Subject: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Catchwords: Application for further & better discovery – Redacted documents
Ruling: Limited discovery ordered.  

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr N Mann	Polaris Lawyers
For the Defendant	Ms B de Brouwer	Minter Ellison

HIS HONOUR:

1       In this Application, I make the following Rulings.

2       As to paragraph 17(f) of Mr Ruschena’s Affidavit of Documents, dated 14 August 2020. The Defendant is to engage Information Technology Services (ITS) of the Alfred Hospital to search the former Director of Neurosurgery’s electronic archive, prior to 2015, for relevant material and provide an Affidavit of Documents in that regard by 8 November 2020.

3       As to Exhibit NM18 of the Affidavit of Mr Nicholas Mann, being a request for further and better discovery of:

a.    Minutes of the Medical Appointments Committee dated 14 December 2010;

b.    Further correspondence relating to internal accreditation of Mr Hwang in relation to skull base and pituitary surgery; and

c.    Staff rosters for Mr Hwang and any other clinicians who treated the Plaintiff in the 2 weeks prior to and the 2 weeks following the surgery.

4       I find in relation to items (a) & (b) above, the Defendant has already deposed in its Affidavit of Documents to these matters and has complied with its obligations. As to item (c), I find it is beyond the scope of the current pleadings. Further, I find that it is too broad a request. I deny the Plaintiff’s application for further and better discovery of these 3 classes of documents.

5       As to the Defendant’s answers to interrogatories, I find in respect of Answer to Interrogatories 1 and 2, (Answer to Interrogatory 10 is no longer being pressed) I find that the answers to interrogatories are sufficiently responsive to the questions posed. The matters raised by the Plaintiff can be appropriately put to the Defendant at Trial. I deny the Plaintiff’s application for further and better Answers to Interrogatories 1 & 2.

6       As to the redacted documents I find as follows:

SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS

a.Document 110: – Redactions correctly made.

b.Document 111:

i.Page 1 – Redaction 1 – Item 4 ought be revealed as it relates to

paragraphs 12(i) & 12(j) of the
     Statement of Claim.

– Redaction 2 – Item 4 ought be revealed as it relates to

paragraphs 12(i) & 12(j) of the
     Statement of Claim.

ii.Page 3 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

iii.Page 4 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

iv.Page 5 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

v.Page 6 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

vi.Page 7 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

vii.Page 8 – Redaction 1 – Paragraph 1 & 2 ought be revealed.

viii.Page 9 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

c.Document 114:

i.Page 1 – Redaction 1 – Item 4 ought be revealed as it relates to

paragraphs 12(i) & 12(j) of the
     Statement of Claim.

d.Document 148:

i.Page 1 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

– Redaction 2 – Redaction correct.

ii.Page 2 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

iii.Page 3 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

iv.Page 4 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

v.Page 5 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

vi.Page 6 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

vii.Page 8 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

– Redaction 2 – Redaction correct.

viii.Page 9 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

– Redaction 2 – Redaction correct.
  – Redaction 3 – Redaction correct.
  – Redaction 4 – Redaction correct.
  – Redaction 5 – Redaction correct.

ix.Page 10 – Redaction 1 – Ought be revealed.

– Redaction 2 – Redaction correct.
   – Redaction 3 – Redaction correct.
   – Redaction 4 – Redaction correct.
   – Redaction 5 – Redaction correct.

x.Page 11 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

– Redaction 2 – Ought be revealed.

e.Document 150:

i.Page 1 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

– Redaction 2 – Redaction correct.
  – Redaction 3 – Redaction correct.

ii.Page 2 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

iii.Page 3 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

iv.Page 4 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

f.Document 153:

i.Page 1 – Redaction 1 – Item 4 ought be revealed as it relates to

paragraphs 12(i) & 12(j) of the
     Statement of Claim.

– Redaction 2 – Item 4 ought be revealed as it relates to

paragraphs 12(i) & 12(j) of the
     Statement of Claim.

ii.Page 2 – Redaction 1 – Item 4 ought be revealed as it relates to

paragraphs 12(i) & 12(j) of the
     Statement of Claim.

iii.Page 3 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

iv.Page 4 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

v.Page 5 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

vi.Page 6 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

vii.Page 7 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.

viii.Page 8 – Redaction 1 – Paragraphs 1 & 2 ought be revealed.

– Redaction 2 – Redaction correct.

ix.Page 9 – Redaction 1 – Redaction correct.