Richards v Kadian

Case [2005] NSWCA 328

Reported Decision:

 64 NSWLR 204

Court of Appeal


CITATION:

RICHARDS v. ANKUR KADIAN by his Tutor JANAK KADIAN & ORS. [2005] NSWCA 328
HEARING DATE(S):

06/05/2005
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 


23 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF:

Beazley JA at 1; Hodgson JA at 159; Stein AJA at 172
DECISION:

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACT - confidentiality - doctor/patient relationship - whether party to proceedings entitled to insist upon the right to confidentiality with third party - relevant principles - whether maintaining party's right to confidentiality inimical to the public interest and the administration of justice - CONTRACT - confidentiality - waiver - relevant principles - whether party has taken up two inconsistent positions in relation to claim - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - stay of proceedings - court's inherent power to make orders necessary to prevent injustice - s.23 Supreme Court Act - discretion as to whether power should be exercised - whether refusal to grant stay would result in unfair trial - whether party has opportunity to defend matter should stay be refused
LEGISLATION CITED:

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW)
Medical Practice Regulation 2003 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
CASES CITED:

A v. Hayden (1984) 156 CLR 532
AG Australia Holdings Ltd v. Burton (2002) 58 NSWLR 464
Allied Mills Industries Pty. Limited v. Trade Practices Commission (No. 1)
Ampolex v. Perpetual Trustee Co. (Canberra) (1995) 37 NSWLR 405 at 411
Annesley v. Earl of Anglese (1743) 17 State Tr 1139
Ansley v. Ansley (1973) 12 RFL 93
Apollo Shower Screens Pty. Ltd. & Anor v. Building & Construction Industry Long Service Payments Corporation (1985) 1 NSWLR 561
Ashburton v Pape [1913] 2 Ch 469
Attorney-General (Northern Territory) v. Maurice (1986) 161 CLR 475
Banning v. Wright [1972] 1 WLR 972
Benecke v. National Australia Bank (1993) 35 NSWLR 110
Bolkiah v KPMG [1999] 2 AC 222 (House of Lords)
British Steel Corporation v. Granada Television Ltd. [1981] AC 1096
Brown v. Brooks (unreported, 18 August 1988, McClelland J)
Calcraft v Guest [1898] 1 QB 759
Carr v. Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation (1864) 34 LJQB 21
Commonwealth of Australia v. Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394
Corrs Pavey Whiting & Byrne v Collector of Customs (Vic) (1987) 74 ALR 428
Craine v. Colonial Mutual Fire Insurance Co Limited (1920) 28 CLR 305
D & J Constructions Pty Ltd v Head (1987) 9 NSWLR 118
D v. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children [1978] AC 171
Davey v. Bentinck (1893) 1 QB 185
Doe & Ors. v. Eli Lilley & Company Inc & Ors (1983) 99 FRD 126
Dwyer v National Companies & Securities Commission (No. 2) (1988) 15 NSWLR
Edmeades v. Thames Board Mills Ltd [1969] 2 QB 67
Egerton v. Brownlow (1853) 4 HL Cas 1; 10 ER 359
Ferris v. Lambton (1905) 22 WN (NSW) 56
Fitzgerald v. F.J. Leonhardt Pty. Ltd. (1997) 189 CLR 215.
Frenette v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (1992) 89 DLR (4th)…

Continue reading Richards v Kadian

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Richards v Kadian [2005] NSWCA 328
Case
[2005] NSWCA 328
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Richards v Kadian* concerned a dispute between the parties regarding the confidentiality of certain information. The appeal was heard by Beazley and Hodgson JJA, and Stein AJA.

The central legal issues before the court were whether a party to proceedings was entitled to insist upon a right to confidentiality with a third party, and whether maintaining such a right was inimical to the public interest and the administration of justice. The court also considered principles of waiver of confidentiality, specifically whether a party had adopted two inconsistent positions regarding a claim. Furthermore, the court examined its inherent power to grant a stay of proceedings under s 23 of the *Supreme Court Act* to prevent injustice, and the discretion involved in exercising this power, including whether a refusal to grant a stay would result in an unfair trial or deprive a party of an opportunity to defend the matter.

The court determined that leave to appeal should be granted. The appeal itself was subsequently dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed with costs.

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.