Supreme Court Injunction Case Ends After Six-Day Hearing

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28552, 3 April 1958, Page 5

Supreme Court Injunction Case Ends After Six-Day Hearing

The longest civil case heard m the Supreme Court for some time concluded at 8.50 o’clock last evening when Mr Justice Adams reserved his decision on a motion by two doctors from an injunction against another doctor, their former partner. Considerable legal argument and evidence on the meaning of "private medical practice’’ was heard throughout the six-day hearing. Evidence had been completed at a previous hearing and final addresses by counsel were made yesterday. An injunction to restrain Basil Marmaduke de Lambert (Mr E. P. Wills) from practising privately as a radiologist within 10 miles of the Chief Post Office, Christchurch, was sought by Eric Robe-t Blakely and Colin Graeme Anderson (Mr J. G. Leggat). The defendant was alleged to have acted in breach of a covenant by accepting a position as a radiologist at Calvary Hospital. The covenant under which the injunction was sought was contained in a partnership agreement signed by the parties in 1953. While he was a member of the partnership de Lambert had worked as a radiologist at Calvary Hospital. Later he left the partnership and went to Dunedin, but after returning to Christchurch he obtained the Calvary appointment again. Meaning of Private Practice

Continuing his address. Mr Leggat said that private practice for radiologists was different from that for other medical practices The words “practising privately" were a substantial issue in the defence. “I submit that they mean practising under a private arrangement.” Practice outside a public hospital, even thought it involved a connexion with a private hospital, was practising privately as a radiologist, said counsel. All three men were in hospital practice in the sense that they were practising their calling in hospital buildings and plainly the term "private practice” was ap--1 propriate to a person practising privately in a private hospital All three men regarded the business of the partnership as including the work of Dr. Blakely at St George’s Hospital, and Dr de Lambert's work at Calvary. Mr Leggat said. All parties acknowledged that the St. George's and Calvary duties were a substantial part ol the business. “No Prohibition"

A radiologist was a consultant, and outside a public hospital he was available to whomsoever might consult him. counsel submitted. There had been no prohibition whatever on Dr. de Lambert as to whom he might see. and he was in a position of giving direct competition to other radiologists.

If part of the practice had passed into de Lambert’s hands after he left the partnership then that was a breach of the covenant because the defendant was practising privately. It was denied by the plaintiffs that they had refused to pay the defendant goodwill where it was lawfully payable, said Mr Leggat.

The negotiations for the appointment of de Lambert at Calvary Hospital were conducted with almost “indecent haste,” Mr Leggat said. Referring to the defence claim that Calvary and the defendant would suffer hardship by the granting of an injunction, counsel said that Calvary “had not even had the grace to present itself at the proceedings as a witness.” The plaintiffs and their partners had been, and still were, prepared to provide a full service at Calvary until an appointment was made. The defendant had acted against the ethical views expressed by his association and against the advice of his solicitor. By so doing he had committed a wilful breach of covenant, said Mr Leggat. Mr Wills addressed the Court in reply to Mr Leggat’s submissions.