AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of New South Wales

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of New South Wales >> 1999 >> [1999] NSWSC 65

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Sommer v Roney [1999] NSWSC 65 (15 February 1999)

Last Updated: 18 February 1999

NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT

CITATION: SOMMER v. RONEY [1999] NSWSC 65

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): 20737/94

HEARING DATE{S): 15 February 1999

JUDGDMENT DATE: 15/02/1999

PARTIES:

Jane Louise SOMMER v. William Ronald RONEY

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Not Applicable

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): Not Applicable

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Not Applicable

COUNSEL:

Plaintiff: Dr. J.G. Renwick

Defendant: A.C. Collins (Solicitor)

SOLICITORS:

Plaintiff: Charlton Shearman

Defendant: Blake Dawson Waldron

CATCHWORDS:

ACTS CITED:

DECISION:

Refer to the Duty Judge

JUDGMENT:

SOMMER -2-

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

NAME OF DIVISION

No. 20737 of 1994

GREG JAMES, J.

MONDAY 15 FEBRUARY 1999

JANE LOUISE SOMMER v. WILLAIM RONALD RONEY

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:

1 This matter came before me this morning on referral from the Duty Judge, it was in respect of a motion in the Duty Judge's list seeking a declaration, in essence, as to the breadth of the relationship of confidentiality arising between doctor and patient and, in particular, the circumstances within which the confidentiality arising from the relationship might be waived.

2 The motion sought both a declaration and a stay.

3 The principal proceedings are proceedings for professional negligence. These have been stood over into the long matters list.

4 The debate in respect of the nature of the motion went so far as to allow the exploration of alternatives to the grant of the declaration and the stay sought and ways in which the parties might accommodate each other in order to enable some elucidation of the matters of fact the defendant seeks to find out about and protection for at least legal professional privilege for the plaintiff.

5 I have been informed the parties are undertaking discussions in that regard and it has been sought that the matter go over to the Duty Judge's list on Monday.

6 I have made these remarks lest either of the parties should need to have them taken out at any stage for resolution of any matter that might be in dispute, including costs in connection with this motion.

7 The matter can stand over to Monday 22 February 1999 in the Duty Judge's list.

LAST UPDATED: 15/02/1999


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/1999/65.html