Supreme Court ACTION FOR INJUNCTION

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28541, 21 March 1958, Page 13

Supreme Court ACTION FOR INJUNCTION

Fourth Day Of Hearing

For the fourth day Mr Justice Adams heard evidence and submissions in the Supreme Courtyesterday in the case in which Eric Robert Blakely and Cblin Graeme Anderson seek «n injunction prohibiting Basil Marmaduke dd' Lambert from practising privately as a radiologist within 10 miles of the Chief Post Office, Christchurch. Plaintiffs alleged a breach of a partnership covenant by de Lambert's acceptance of an appointment as a radiologist at Calvary Hospital. Mr I. G. Leggat appears for plaintiffs and Mr E. P. Wills for defendant.

Defendant, questioned by Mr Leggat, said no notice that the dissolution of the agreement be referred to an arbitrator had been given. Some steps had been taken but he did not know, how

>r they had gone. He agreed that his appointment brought him info competition, indirectly, with his estwhile partners. “Ute plain question before the court is whether full-time salaried employment at Calvary Hospital does constitute private practice,” said Mr Wills in his final address. The prohibition was not a complete one. It was obviously intended that there should be some degree of practice allowed to all the partners. T?ie plaintiffs had argued that any practice other than full-time practice in a public hospital or institution was private practice. They designated the public ownership of the institution or employer as the test. In the defendant’s submission, that distinction between State or pub-licly-owned hospitals and private-ly-owned or non-State-owned hospitals as the test of private practice was misguided and mispleading. It confused two separate uses of the word “private.” usages which were well known and distinct.

The hearing was again adjourned sine die, Mr Wills not having finished his address by 5.45 p.m. “We are making progress,” remarked his Honour.