Appanna v Anglesea Hospital Limited - [2016] NZHC 3172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-1794 [2016] NZHC 3172

BETWEEN
NALENDRA APPANNA

Plaintiff

AND

ANGLESEA HOSPITAL LIMITED Defendant

Hearing: 3 October 2016

Appearances:

A H Waalkens QC and B M Moore for the Plaintiff
M Fisher and K J Ng for the Defendant

Judgment:

6 October 2016

Reasons:

21 December 2016

JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 December 2016 at 11:00 a.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
……………………………………

Solicitors / Counsel:
Mr A H Waalkens QC, Barrister, Auckland
Mr S O’Sullivan (plaintiff ’s instructing solicitor), DLA Piper, Solicitors, Wellington
Mr M J Fisher, Barrister, Auckland
Mr P Kemps (defendant’s instructing solicitor), Kemps Weir Lawyers, Solicitors, Auckland

APPANNA v ANGLESEA HOSPITAL LTD [2016] NZHC 3172 [21 December 2016]

[1] The plaintiff, Dr Appanna, applied for an interim injunction, seeking mandatory orders, arising out of suspension of his “credentialing” to conduct surgery at the defendant’s hospital. The suspension, made without any prior notice to Dr Appanna, was on the basis that there was evidence giving rise to concern about patient safety.

[2] Having received comprehensive written and oral submissions, and after reviewing the evidence, I made the order sought, as follows:1

The defendant shall immediately reinstate the plaintiff’s credentialing status and operating privileges at Anglesea Hospital, Knox Street, Hamilton, pending further order of this Court.

[3] The order was made without recording my reasons. These are my reasons.

Outline of claims and contentions

[4] In his substantive claim Dr Appanna advances three alternative causes of action against the defendant. I will refer to the defendant, and to the hospital itself, as Anglesea. Dr Appanna claims that Anglesea breached a contractual agreement with him, that Anglesea is in breach of fiduciary duties owed to him, and that he is entitled to relief on an application for judicial review.

[5] Anglesea, in its written submissions on this application, appeared to contend that there was no contract between Dr Appanna and Anglesea relevant to this application.2 However, Mr Fisher, for Anglesea, acknowledged in his oral submissions that there is a contract, but breach is denied. Anglesea also denied that the relationship between the parties gave rise to fiduciary duties owed by Anglesea to Dr Appanna, and denied that any decisions made by Anglesea can be subject to
judicial review.

[6] The parties followed the conventional approach to applications for interim injunctions.3 The first enquiry is whether there is a serious question to be tried on

1      Appanna v Anglesea Hospital Ltd [2016] NZHC 2378.
2      Dr Appanna was an Anglesea shareholder and there was a shareholders’ agreement. This has no
relevance.
3      American Cyanamid co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396, [1975] 1 All ER 504 (HL).

the plaintiff’s claims. Dr Appanna contended that this was for two reasons: the process leading to his suspension and following it was fundamentally flawed, and the evidence established that there was no patient safety risk justifying his suspension. Anglesea…

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 Appanna v Anglesea Hospital Limited 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: [2016] NZHC 3172
Decision Date: 6 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Appanna v Anglesea Hospital Limited, Dr Appanna sought an interim injunction for mandatory orders following his suspension from conducting surgery at Anglesea Hospital. The suspension was based on concerns about patient safety and was made without prior notice. Dr Appanna claimed that the process leading to his suspension and following it was fundamentally flawed, and that there was no patient safety risk justifying his suspension. Anglesea contested these claims. The court found that there was a serious question to be tried on Dr Appanna's claims, particularly regarding the flawed process and lack of patient safety risk. On the balance of convenience, the court found that the consequences to Dr Appanna of not granting the injunction outweighed those to Anglesea, particularly given the clear decision from the Medical Council that there was no risk. The court granted the injunction, ordering Anglesea to immediately reinstate Dr Appanna's credentialing status and operating privileges pending further order of the court.

Orders