Supreme Court INJUNCTION GRANTED AGAINST RADIOLOGIST

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 26617, 20 June 1958, Page 6

Supreme Court INJUNCTION GRANTED AGAINST RADIOLOGIST

A doctor practising as a radiologist at, Calvary Hospital was in private practice and had committed a breach of an agreement with his .-former partners, Mr Justice Adams held in a reserved decision given in the Supreme Court yesterday. His Honour granted an injunction restraining Dr. Basil Marmaduke de Lambert from practising privately as a radiologist within 10 miles of Christchurch.

The injunction, which was sought, by Dr. Eric Colin Blakely and Dr. Colin Graeme Anderson, will operate for five years from December 31, 1956. , and will specifically prohibit de Lambert from private radiological practice at Calvary Hospital. The action began in the Supreme Court on March 3 and concluded on April 2 after a hearing extending over six days. Mr J. G. Leggat appeared for the plaintiffs’ and Mr E. P. Wills for the defendant.

The case was argued mainly on the definition of the term ‘‘private practice” contained in a clause of the partnership agreement entered into by the parties in 1953. It was agreed by the partners that if any of them left the partnershin he would not practise privately as a radiologist within 10 miles of the Christchurch Chief- Post Office for five years.

De Lambert left the partnership in 1956 and later accepted an appointment in the radiological denartment of Calvary Hospital.

Several medical witnesses were called during the hearing by both sides to give their opinions on the interpretation of the term ‘‘private practice.” His Honour ruled that this evidence was inadmissible and that the Court had to make up its own mind on the meaning of the words.

“It will be observed that the (radiological) department is far from being a merelv ancillary service provided bv the hospital for its patients, and that the defendant is in effect a radiologist whose services are available to the general public, and who provides about three times as much service for the public as he does for the patients of the hospital.” his Honour said.

He tended to support the view that when the parties spnke of practising private! v the word® were intended t*> include practice in private hosnitals. There was no doubt that to some extent, at least, the defendant was practisin'' privatel v.

If the defendant was conducting a private practice for the benefit and on behalf of the hospital that in his Honour’s onini«n amounted tn practising privatelv Holding that the defendant was in breach rd the covenant in resnect of his work at Calvarv Hosnital. his Honour added that in his opinion de Lambert had

acted in good faith, believing that he was entitled to do what he did.

Commenting on the defendant’s claim that the covenant was injurious to the public interests his Honour said: “If there should be a dearth of radiologists in Christchurch it does not follow that the defendant should be allowed to fill the gap.” If the public interest was involved it was very much in the public interest that contracts should be honoured. There was no ground for holding that the covenant was injurious to the interests of the public. The operation of the injunction was suspended for 10 days to avoid undue embarrassment to the hospital and its pktients. and to enable the parties to be heard as to the form of the injunction. His Honour added that nothing he said said In his judgment was intended to cast any reflection on the authorities in charge of the hospital.