Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 

Leave to Appeal: Dr C v A Complaints Assessment

DR C V A COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE SC SC CIV 27/2005 [22 August 2005]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC CIV 27/2005

[2005] NZSC 56

BETWEEN DR C

Appellant

AND A COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE

Respondent

Court: Tipping J and McGrath J

Hearing: 17 August 2005

Counsel: A H Waalkens QC for Appellant

C J Lange for Respondent

Judgment: 22 August 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Immediately following the hearing of the application for leave to appeal the Court delivered judgment in the following terms:

A. The Court has jurisdiction to determine the proposed appeal.

B. Leave to appeal is granted on the following issues:

(a) Was the Court of Appeal right in its approach to the concept of consent under s 32 of the Evidence Amendment (No. 2) Act 1980? (b) If so, was consent given in this case?

C. The Registrar is directed after consultation with counsel, to allocate a fixture on the first available date.

D. We now make the further order: The respondent is to pay costs to the appellant of $3000 together with reasonable disbursements including the cost of travel and accommodation, if any, to be fixed by the Registrar in the absence of agreement.

REASONS

(for Court’s determination that it has jurisdiction)

[1] This application for leave to appeal relates to a Court of Appeal judgment which is concerned with whether those who complain to the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal about the conduct of a medical practitioner can be taken to have consented to disclosure of records of their consultations with other counsellors, psychiatrists and psychologists, so that the protection from disclosure of such records under s 32 of the Evidence Amendment Act (No. 2) 1980 is lost.

[2] The Medical Practitioners Act 1995 provides that those who are dissatisfied with decisions of the Tribunal may appeal to the District Court. Thereafter, there is a right of appeal by way of case stated on a question of law to the High Court and, with leave, to the Court of Appeal under the provisions of Part 4 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. Those provisions are applied by s 121(3) of the Medical Practitioners Act “in so far as they are applicable and with all necessary modifications”.

[3] Section 144A of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 goes on to provide that, with the leave of the Supreme Court, either party may appeal to that Court against the Court of Appeal’s decision.

[4] The present application for leave to appeal is brought under s 144A by a medical practitioner who faces charges before the Tribunal.

[5] Mr Lange, who appeared for the respondent, which has conduct of the charges, argued that s 144A does not give this Court jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment in this case. His argument is in essence that an appeal under the Medical Practitioners Act is brought against a judgment in a civil proceeding, and must accordingly be brought under s 7 of the Supreme Court Act, rather than s 10, which, Mr Lange says is exclusively concerned with criminal proceedings. Section 10 provides that the Court can hear and determine appeals authorised by s 144A but not, according to the argument, if they are civil proceedings. Mr Lange argues that s 7 of the Supreme Court Act is not available, as it confers jurisdiction to hear appeals in civil proceedings only if a right of appeal is not precluded by another statute. Counsel here points to s 67 of the Judicature Act 1908 which was held by the Privy Council to preclude appeals beyond the Court of Appeal in De Morgan v Director-General of Social Welfare [1997] 3 NZLR 385, 387-388.

[6] The question has arisen because of the inconsistency between the statutory scheme of the Supreme Court Act 2003, which distinguishes between appeals against decisions in civil proceedings and criminal proceedings (including proceedings under the Summary Proceedings Act) on the one hand, and appeals under statutes such as the Medical Practitioners Act, which incorporate provisions for appeals on questions of law that are applicable in the summary criminal jurisdiction on the other. We are however satisfied that in the context of a statute with a purpose that includes improvement of access to justice and providing generally for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, s 10 when read together with s 144A, authorises appeals in circumstances such as the present, as if the appeals concerned were brought in criminal proceedings. It follows that the bar in s 67 of the Judicature Act has no application, and that this Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, under s 10 of the 2004 Act.

Solicitors:

Fisher Lamberg, Auckland for Appellant

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch for Respondent

ENDS

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

Werewolf: What Does Winston Peters Want His Legacy To Be?

A lot of people in New Zealand seem to resent Winston Peters and the power that he appears to have. “Appears” being the operative word. In reality, Peters will have power only up to the point that he uses it.

By next week, he’ll have become just another junior player in an MMP governing arrangement, battling to hold onto the gains he was promised. More>>

 

Rising Toll: Road Safety Needs To Be A Higher Priority

Official advice released to the Green Party under the Official Information Act shows that the previous National Government dismissed an option to make road safety its most important transport priority after being told the road toll was rising. More>>

ALSO:

Wellington.Scoop: Arrests At Blockade Of "Weapons Expo"

“We encourage people in Wellington to get down to the Westpac Stadium now for a day of awesome peace action. There will be plenty of food, music and activities to keep us sustained through the day.” More>>

ALSO:

Rorschach Restructuring: PSA Taking Inland Revenue To Court Over Psychometrics

The Public Service Association will be seeing Inland Revenue in Employment Court over its intention to psychometrically test employees reapplying for their roles at the department as part of its controversial Business Transformation restructuring plan. More>>

ALSO:

Nuclear Disarmament: Nobel Peace Prize 2017 Awarded To ICAN

Congratulations from iCAN Aotearoa New Zealand to international iCAN, the other iCAN national campaigns and partner organisations, and the countless organisations and individuals who have worked so hard for a nuclear weapons-free world since 1945. More>>

ALSO:

Expenses: Waikato DHB CEO Resigns

An independent inquiry has identified that Dr Murray had spent more than the agreed $25K allocated for relocation costs, and other unauthorized expenses involving potential financial breaches of the chief executive’s obligations. More>>

ALSO:

Wellington.Scoop: Sad About The Trolley Buses?

The Regional Council’s MetLink is today spending money to tell us that it really loves Wellington’s trolley buses, even though they’re all being taken off our roads by the end of this month. More>>

ALSO:

Post-Election: Preliminary Coalition Talks Begin

New Zealand First will hold post-election preliminary discussions in Wellington with the National Party tomorrow morning and the Labour Party tomorrow afternoon. More>>

 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 
 

Featured InfoPages

Opening the Election