Appanna v Anglesea Hospital Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-1794 [2016] NZHC 2378

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

JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J (RESULT)

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 October 2016 at 12:45 p.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 2378 [6 October 2016]

[1] On the plaintiff ’s interlocutory application for an interim mandatory

injunction dated 2 August 2016, there is an order as follows:

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.

[2] The reasons for this decision will follow with costs reserved pending delivery of the reasons

Woodhouse J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Narendra Appanna, filed an application seeking an interim mandatory injunction against Anglesea Hospital Limited, the defendant, to reinstate his credentialing status and operating privileges. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Auckland, and the judgment was delivered on 6 October 2016. The plaintiff's application was brought on an interlocutory basis, meaning it was intended to provide temporary relief while the substantive proceedings were ongoing.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to an interim mandatory injunction that would compel the defendant to reinstate his credentialing status and operating privileges at Anglesea Hospital. The court had to consider the balance of convenience and the potential irreparable harm that might result from denying the injunction. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the plaintiff had demonstrated a sufficiently strong case on the merits to warrant the granting of the injunction.

In delivering the judgment, the court found in favour of the plaintiff. The judge determined that the plaintiff had made out a case on the merits and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction. The court was persuaded that the plaintiff would suffer significant harm if his credentialing status and operating privileges were not reinstated immediately, and that the defendant would not suffer significant harm if the injunction was granted. Consequently, the court ordered that the defendant must immediately reinstate the plaintiff's credentialing status and operating privileges at Anglesea Hospital pending further order of the court. The costs of the application were reserved pending the delivery of the reasons.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

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