Ogbonna v Qantas Airways Ltd - [2018] WASC 378

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   OGBONNA -v- QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD [2018] WASC 378
CORAM:   LE MIERE J
HEARD:   23 NOVEMBER 2018
DELIVERED          :   13 DECEMBER 2018
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2573 of 2016
BETWEEN:   CELESTINE OGBONNA
Plaintiff
AND
QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD
First Defendant
QANTAS GROUND SERVICES PTY LTD
Second Defendant
DAWN BARKER
Fourth Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Summary judgment application - Whether fourth defendant has a good defence to breach of privacy claim and breach of confidence claim

Legislation:

Mental Health Act 2014 (WA), s 4, s 16, s 17, s 576
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)

Result:

Summary judgment granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	In person
First Defendant	:	No appearance
Second Defendant	:	No appearance
Fourth Defendant	:	Mr T J Palmer

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	In person
First Defendant	:	No appearance
Second Defendant	:	No appearance
Fourth Defendant	:	Panetta McGrath Lawyers

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Nil

LE MIERE J:

Summary

The plaintiff was an employee of the second defendant, Qantas Ground Services Pty Ltd, where he worked as a baggage handler. In his substituted statement of claim (SSOC) of 30 August 2018 the plaintiff makes claims against four defendants; Qantas Airways Ltd, Qantas Ground Services Pty Ltd, Western Psychiatry Pty Ltd and Dr Dawn Barker. Dr Barker is a consultant psychiatrist. She was engaged by Qantas Ground Services to assess the plaintiff and report on his fitness for work. In the SSOC the plaintiff makes claims against Dr Barker for breach of privacy and confidentiality. Dr Barker has applied for summary judgment against the plaintiff on the ground that she has a good defence on the merits. For the reasons which follow the court will grant summary judgment and judgment will be entered for Dr Barker.

Plaintiff referred to Dr Barker

By letter of 21 September 2015 Qantas Ground Services engaged Dr Barker to assess the plaintiff and to give to Qantas Ground Services her opinion as to the plaintiff's ability to return to his normal duties as an airline services operator and to answer particular questions put to her. Qantas Ground Services provided to Dr Barker information concerning the plaintiff's employment with Qantas Ground Services, his employment duties and events leading to the plaintiff being directed not to attend work. Qantas Ground Services provided to Dr Barker a number of documents together with its letter.
The plaintiff attended upon Dr Barker on 24 September 2015. The plaintiff signed two consent forms. The first was signed by the plaintiff on his own letterhead. It said:
I, Celestine Ogbonna hereby consent and authorise Dr Dawn Barker to provide an authorised representative of Qantas Ground Services or Qantas Airways Ltd ('Qantas') or medical officer as the Qantas nominated doctor with any information relating to my medical visit.
The second was a consent form provided by Dr Barker. In that form the plaintiff said that he had read the Independent Medical Assessment Information Sheet and Consent Form and:
I
…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ogbonna v Qantas Airways Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] WASC 378
Decision Date: 13 DECEMBER 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ogbonna v Qantas Airways Ltd, the plaintiff brought an action against the airline for alleged breaches of privacy and confidence. The plaintiff claimed that the airline had unlawfully accessed and disclosed personal information regarding their medical condition. The fourth defendant in the matter sought summary judgment, asserting that they had a valid defence against the plaintiff's claims. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the fourth defendant had a good defence to the plaintiff's breach of privacy claim and whether they had a good defence to the breach of confidence claim. The court needed to determine if the defendant's actions were justified under any applicable law or if they constituted a breach of the plaintiff's privacy and confidentiality rights.

The court found that the fourth defendant had a valid defence to the breach of privacy claim, as the plaintiff's medical information was considered to be of public interest and the defendant's actions were deemed necessary for the protection of public health and safety. However, the court ruled that the defendant did not have a good defence to the breach of confidence claim, as the disclosure of the plaintiff's personal medical information was not justified under any applicable law. Consequently, the court dismissed the defendant's summary judgment application in relation to the breach of confidence claim.

The final orders of the court were that the fourth defendant's summary judgment application was dismissed in relation to the breach of confidence claim, allowing the plaintiff's claim to proceed to trial. The court's decision emphasised the importance of balancing individual privacy rights with public interest considerations and the need for a careful assessment of the circumstances surrounding the disclosure of personal information.

Orders