Zhang v Hardas (No 2)

The matter before the court involved a claim brought by a patient, Zhang, against a chiropractor, Hardas, for alleged negligence. The patient contended that the chiropractor had mistreated them over a period of seven months, fabricated clinical notes, and breached their duty of care by causing mental harm. The chiropractor argued that he did not owe a duty to prevent the patient from suffering mental harm, that he was not practising a profession for the purposes of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), and that his actions were in accordance with competent professional practice. The court was required to determine whether the chiropractor had breached his duty of care, whether he had caused harm, and whether the defence of limitation applied.

The court first considered the issue of whether the chiropractor owed a duty to prevent the patient from suffering mental harm. It was held that such a duty could be owed in certain circumstances, particularly where the harm was foreseeable and there was a close relationship between the parties. The court then turned to whether the chiropractor was practising a profession for the purposes of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). It was determined that the chiropractor was indeed practising a profession, as he held himself out as having specialised skills and expertise in chiropractic care. The court then examined whether the chiropractor's actions were in accordance with competent professional practice. It was found that the chiropractor's conduct fell below the standard expected of a reasonably competent chiropractor, and therefore constituted a breach of duty. Finally, the court considered whether the defendant chiropractor had caused harm to the plaintiff. It was held that the chiropractor had indeed caused harm, both physical and mental, to the plaintiff.

In light of the above findings, the court dismissed the proceedings, holding that the chiropractor was liable for the harm caused to the plaintiff. The court found that the chiropractor's actions were not widely accepted by peer professional opinion as competent professional practice, and that he had breached his duty of care owed to the plaintiff. The court also held that the defence of limitation was not available to the chiropractor, as the plaintiff had commenced proceedings within the relevant limitation period. The court's decision serves as a reminder to healthcare professionals of the high standard of care expected of them, and the potential consequences of falling short of that standard.