Decision reserved on damages claim

Press, 31 March 1977, Page 2

Decision reserved on damages claim

Nelson reporter |i • Mr Justice Roper reserved " his decision in the Supreme - Court at Nelson yesterday, [on a claim for wrongful dis-’ 1 missal and defamation dam-1 1 ages by Alex Hastweil. • Mr Hastweil, a farmer and 1 'former part-time woodwork, 'instructor at Ngawhatui -Hospital, claimed $5OOO gen-j 1 [era! damages for wrongful;! ■ dismissal, and $5OOO dam- • -ages for defamation from 1 [the Nelson Hospital Board 1 -as first defendant and Dr W.jl O’Reilly as second defend-! .ant. I • Mr C. B. Atkinson and Mr I W. J. Heal appeared for the • defendants, and Mr L. M. Greig for the plaintiff. Deci-;' sion was reserved. ‘ The action resulted from ; - the dismissal, in March, ’ 1975, of the plaintiff by Dri .O’Reilly, who was then the!’ medical superintendent of’’ • the hospital, and who is now retired. Continuing her evidence under cross-examination by -Mr Greig, Thelma Christina ’Addison, the head of the [ male occupational therapy ! unit at the hospital, said 1 ‘that the plaintiff, in taking - up a lot of her time in ask- : • ing questions, was well-in-‘tentioned. However. his -questions were unnecessary, 1 [for the job was a relatively: simple one. witness said. The plaintiff's technical; competence, enthusiasm, and good intentions were not: challenged. It was his ap- ! proach to patients and staff I that caused conflict, she; said. The major problem was the poor relationship between Mrs Little, a member , of the staff, and Mr Hast- [ well, witness said. , Phyllis Joan Blanch, head [ I of the hospital's occupatio- ; nal therapy unit, said that!! she had met Mr Hastweil!:

I quite frequently. He hadii [complained about various! things that he did not agree with at the male occupatio-ji ,nal therapy department, and ] 'she found that many of'i [these were rather petty, and;; took up a great deal of here time. I• She had discussed the sit-J • uation with Mrs Addison be- ' ifore writing a letter of com-l ! [plaint to Dr O'Reilly on; March 17, 1975, because she felt the staff could not con-’ tmue to work with the' i plaintiff, witness said. “I was shocked when I heard that he said he would [psychologically destroy Mrs ! Little, and having heard that II felt I must support Mrs ; Addison,” she said. In legal submissions, Mr [Atkinson said that Ngahatu was a 550-bed hospital, [and that Dr O’Reilly was its I medical superintendent. He [was more than a head of de-i partment. and was respon- [ sible for his heads of department. If his Honour held: that the plaintiff was ‘‘sum-; marily dismissed,” then -Dr| O’Reilly, according to the: law, had the authority to do it. After quoting previous i decisions on similar cases, I *Mr Atkinson said that if the! plaintiff had been wrongfully: dismissed, he was entitled to; damages only for his loss of; salary between one week’s; notice, or what was reason-, able notice. That was really! [nothing, or one week’s sa-j llary. i On the defamation action, I Mr Atkinson said there had been no publication or communications other than the plaintiff’s being told to leave immediately, and being ■ given a week’s pay in lieu of notice. There was no communication with any-1 [body else, and therefore; [there was no defamation.! [Future discussion and con-1 Isideration of the matter by ;

I the board was privileged,’ Mr Atkinson submitted. The kernel of the plaintiff's case depended on two points —the position of Dr iO’Reilly, and what kind of ■dismissal took place, said [Mr Greig in his submissions. He quoted circulars and bylaws, and submitted that Dr O’Reilly was not the medical; , superintendent after the psychiatric hospital had been! [taken over by the board in 11972. Under by-law eight,; the medical superintendent i was described as the medical; »uperintendent-in-chief. “It may well be that the; by-law should have been,' changed after 1972, but it has not been,” Mr Greig said. A circular from the controlling officer had made it clear that the superinten-dent-in-chief was the final arbiter in all dismissals. Dr O’Reilly’s power was limited : in respect of dismissals, Mr [Greig submitted.