Case Summary: Breen vs. Williams (1996)
Breen v Williams (1996) HCA:
Facts
• Dow Corning manufactures a silicone breast implant; due to a design defect, it leaks and causes harm to those in whom the devices were implanted.
• Breen has had an implantation surgery, and the implants subsequently leak.
• She undergoes corrective surgery, but it fails to relieve her pain and resolve the problem.
• She wants to join in a class action lawsuit against the United States manufacturer.
• Permission to do so is granted, providing that she submits medical records to the American Court documenting her treatment and injuries.
• To obtain these records, Ms Breen must access them from her Australian doctor.
• However, her doctor, Williams, refuses to grant access to the files (though he agreed to provide a report summarising the information), unless she indemnifies him against all liability for performing the corrective augmentation surgery.
• She sues Mr Williams in contract, property and breach of fiduciary duty.
• She claims a contractual right to her medical records; that is, that Mr Williams owed a contractual duty to disclose.
• She claims that the records were her property, not those of her doctor of the health service.
• In equity, she argues that the doctor owes her a positive fiduciary duty to disclose to her details of her medical records (relying on McInerney v McDonald)
• Strangely, Ms Breen does not simply sue Mr Williams in negligence and thereby obtain discovery of the records.
• If the litigation takes place in a foreign jurisdiction, letters rogatory will normally be issued from the foreign judge requesting access to the documents.
• Instead, Breen pursues a test case, intending to establish whether a medical patient can obtain access to their records at common law.
Issue
• Does Mr Williams owe a fiduciary obligation to Ms Breen to make full disclosure of her medical records?
Reasoning
High Court of Australia:
Brennan CJ:
• Fiduciary duties have two sources:
(1) Agency
Facts
• Dow Corning manufactures a silicone breast implant; due to a design defect, it leaks and causes harm to those in whom the devices were implanted.
• Breen has had an implantation surgery, and the implants subsequently leak.
• She undergoes corrective surgery, but it fails to relieve her pain and resolve the problem.
• She wants to join in a class action lawsuit against the United States manufacturer.
• Permission to do so is granted, providing that she submits medical records to the American Court documenting her treatment and injuries.
• To obtain these records, Ms Breen must access them from her Australian doctor.
• However, her doctor, Williams, refuses to grant access to the files (though he agreed to provide a report summarising the information), unless she indemnifies him against all liability for performing the corrective augmentation surgery.
• She sues Mr Williams in contract, property and breach of fiduciary duty.
• She claims a contractual right to her medical records; that is, that Mr Williams owed a contractual duty to disclose.
• She claims that the records were her property, not those of her doctor of the health service.
• In equity, she argues that the doctor owes her a positive fiduciary duty to disclose to her details of her medical records (relying on McInerney v McDonald)
• Strangely, Ms Breen does not simply sue Mr Williams in negligence and thereby obtain discovery of the records.
• If the litigation takes place in a foreign jurisdiction, letters rogatory will normally be issued from the foreign judge requesting access to the documents.
• Instead, Breen pursues a test case, intending to establish whether a medical patient can obtain access to their records at common law.
Issue
• Does Mr Williams owe a fiduciary obligation to Ms Breen to make full disclosure of her medical records?
Reasoning
High Court of Australia:
Brennan CJ:
• Fiduciary duties have two sources:
(1) Agency