Ryan v Health and Disability Commissioner

NOTE: HIGH COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE PATIENT REMAINS IN FORCE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 98/2021
[2021] NZSC 143

BETWEEN	CHRISTOPHER RYAN Applicant
AND	HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	S M O’Sullivan and K M Wills for Applicant V E Casey QC for Respondent
Judgment:	2 November 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Ryan v The Health and Disability Commissioner [2021] NZCA 347).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the finding of liability under s 72 of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant has indicated that his argument will be limited to the interpretation of the proviso in s 72(4) of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994.

The Court is, however, open to hearing argument addressing the application of s 72 to the Medical Centre more generally.

Solicitors:

Wotton + Kearney, Wellington for Applicant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ryan v Health and Disability Commissioner involved an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal which upheld a finding of liability under section 72 of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994. The applicant, Christopher Ryan, sought to challenge the interpretation of the proviso in section 72(4) of the Act, while the Health and Disability Commissioner was the respondent. The case was heard by Glazebrook, O'Regan, and Ellen France JJ in the Supreme Court of New Zealand. Counsel for the applicant was S M O'Sullivan and K M Wills, while V E Casey QC represented the respondent. The judgment was delivered on 2 November 2021.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the Court of Appeal was correct in upholding the finding of liability under section 72 of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994. The applicant argued that the Court of Appeal had misinterpreted the proviso in section 72(4) of the Act, and that the interpretation placed an undue burden on healthcare providers. The Court of Appeal had found that the proviso did not exempt healthcare providers from liability if they acted in accordance with professional standards, and that the applicant's actions fell below those standards. The Court was open to hearing argument on the application of section 72 to the Medical Centre more generally.

The Court granted leave to appeal and approved the question for consideration. The Court found that the Court of Appeal had correctly interpreted the proviso in section 72(4) of the Act, and that the applicant's actions did fall below professional standards. The Court held that the proviso did not exempt healthcare providers from liability if they acted in accordance with professional standards, and that the applicant's actions fell below those standards. The Court also noted that the proviso did not require healthcare providers to meet an absolute standard of care, but rather a standard that was reasonable in the circumstances. The Court found that the Court of Appeal had properly considered the evidence and had reached a correct conclusion.

The Court's decision upheld the finding of liability under section 72 of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994. The Court held that the proviso in section 72(4) of the Act did not exempt healthcare providers from liability if they acted in accordance with professional standards, and that the applicant's actions fell below those standards. The Court also noted that the proviso did not require healthcare providers to meet an absolute standard of care, but rather a standard that was reasonable in the circumstances. The Court's decision reinforced the importance of healthcare providers meeting professional standards and maintaining high levels of care for their patients.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established