LAW317 Research Essay
Introduction
Australian jurisdictions have been cautious on expanding the equitable principles of fiduciary obligations to the doctor-patient relationship. In this light, it can be agreed that equity’s principles have been refrained from expansion and development in Australia. Justice Michael Kirby’s metaphor of equity being a ‘time capsule ’ however does not reflect the treatment of equitable principles in fiduciary law, as equity’s principles in this context have not been opened.
The case Breen v Williams [Breen] provided the High Court of Australia [High Court] with an opportunity to restate, and to possibly reshape, the principles governing fiduciary law. However, failure by the High Court in recognising fiduciary …show more content…
La Forest J ruled that the doctor-patient relationship is fiduciary in nature , as doctors are required to act with ‘utmost good faith and loyalty’ . Doctors were ruled to have a positive obligation to act as a ‘trustee’ of information contained in a patient’s medical records. Although the doctor was recognised as the owner of the actual record, the patient’s personal information is to be used by the physician for the benefit of the patient . Thus, patients were held to have interest in their medical records, and are now granted the right to access them upon request . McInerney will be discussed in the following analysis regarding fiduciary law in …show more content…
The High Court decision in Breen unanimously held that the doctor-patient relationship is not an accepted category of fiduciary relationship in Australia . Although some features of the doctor-patient relationship were considered fiduciary, Gaudron and McHugh JJ provided that this would not render the doctor-patient relationship as fiduciary for all purposes . Thus, the scope of fiduciary obligations on the doctor-patient relationship could not be defined. Their Honours were of the view that expansion of fiduciary obligations to grant patients to acquire medical files from their doctors was beyond equity . Dawson and Toohey JJ provide that the law has not, as yet, been able to formulate any precise or comprehensive definition of the circumstances in which a person is constituted a fiduciary in his or her relations with another . The High Court thus refused to recognise equity’s significance and relied heavily on common law principles in arriving at their decision.
Furthermore, the High Court rejected the decision held in McInerney. Brennan CJ was unprepared to extend the scope of fiduciary obligations to include positive obligations. He noted that Australia’s understanding of the nature of fiduciary obligations differed from the Canadian courts, and that the Canadian’s idea of fiduciary duties is, “…not in accord with the law of fiduciary duty…” as understood in Australia . The High Court was only
Introduction
Australian jurisdictions have been cautious on expanding the equitable principles of fiduciary obligations to the doctor-patient relationship. In this light, it can be agreed that equity’s principles have been refrained from expansion and development in Australia. Justice Michael Kirby’s metaphor of equity being a ‘time capsule ’ however does not reflect the treatment of equitable principles in fiduciary law, as equity’s principles in this context have not been opened.
The case Breen v Williams [Breen] provided the High Court of Australia [High Court] with an opportunity to restate, and to possibly reshape, the principles governing fiduciary law. However, failure by the High Court in recognising fiduciary …show more content…
La Forest J ruled that the doctor-patient relationship is fiduciary in nature , as doctors are required to act with ‘utmost good faith and loyalty’ . Doctors were ruled to have a positive obligation to act as a ‘trustee’ of information contained in a patient’s medical records. Although the doctor was recognised as the owner of the actual record, the patient’s personal information is to be used by the physician for the benefit of the patient . Thus, patients were held to have interest in their medical records, and are now granted the right to access them upon request . McInerney will be discussed in the following analysis regarding fiduciary law in …show more content…
The High Court decision in Breen unanimously held that the doctor-patient relationship is not an accepted category of fiduciary relationship in Australia . Although some features of the doctor-patient relationship were considered fiduciary, Gaudron and McHugh JJ provided that this would not render the doctor-patient relationship as fiduciary for all purposes . Thus, the scope of fiduciary obligations on the doctor-patient relationship could not be defined. Their Honours were of the view that expansion of fiduciary obligations to grant patients to acquire medical files from their doctors was beyond equity . Dawson and Toohey JJ provide that the law has not, as yet, been able to formulate any precise or comprehensive definition of the circumstances in which a person is constituted a fiduciary in his or her relations with another . The High Court thus refused to recognise equity’s significance and relied heavily on common law principles in arriving at their decision.
Furthermore, the High Court rejected the decision held in McInerney. Brennan CJ was unprepared to extend the scope of fiduciary obligations to include positive obligations. He noted that Australia’s understanding of the nature of fiduciary obligations differed from the Canadian courts, and that the Canadian’s idea of fiduciary duties is, “…not in accord with the law of fiduciary duty…” as understood in Australia . The High Court was only