Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Medical Liability in New Zealand

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Medical Liability in Asia and Australasia

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 94))

  • 548 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines the framework for medical liability in New Zealand. From European settlement, until 1974, New Zealand’s system for medical liability was based on the common-law. Persons who sustained injuries, as the result of negligent actions by a healthcare provider, could bring proceedings to be compensated for that harm. Major legislative reforms, in 1974, introducing a no-fault insurance system for personal injuries, significantly limited the ability to sue for medical malpractice in New Zealand. This chapter examines New Zealand’s Accident Compensation scheme relating to compensation for medical injury and the residual ways in which claims for medical liability may be brought.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Royal Commission to Inquire into and Report Upon Workers’ Compensation, Compensation for Personal Injury in New Zealand: Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, (Government Printer, 1967) (Woodhouse Report).

  2. 2.

    Donselaar v Donselaar [1982] 1 NZLR 97 (CA) at 104.

  3. 3.

    Woodhouse Report, supra note 1.

  4. 4.

    Accident Compensation Corporation v Ambros [2007] NZCA 304, [2008] 1 NZLR 340 (CA) at [25].

  5. 5.

    Accident Compensation Act 2001 (NZ) s 317(1) [2001 Act].

  6. 6.

    Harrild v Director of Proceedings [2003] 3 NZLR 289 (CA).

  7. 7.

    2001 Act, supra note 5 at s 317(2).

  8. 8.

    Id at s 317(3).

  9. 9.

    Id at s 317(4) and (5).

  10. 10.

    Id at s 20(1).

  11. 11.

    Id at s 26(1).

  12. 12.

    Id at s 20(2).

  13. 13.

    Id at s 26 (1A), (1B), (2), (3), (4).

  14. 14.

    Allenby v Hannam 3 NZLR 425 (SC) per Blanchard J at [68].

  15. 15.

    Manning (2015a).

  16. 16.

    Id.

  17. 17.

    2001 Act, supra note 5 s 32(1).

  18. 18.

    Id s 32(4)-(6).

  19. 19.

    Id s 33(1).

  20. 20.

    Id s 32(2)(a).

  21. 21.

    Id at s 32(2)(b), (c) and 32(3).

  22. 22.

    Harrild, supra note 6. It is possible that the spouse of the woman could bring proceedings for compensation for mental injury under the common-law, although not under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 (NZ).

  23. 23.

    In this chapter wrongful birth includes wrongful conception (unwanted conception) and wrongful birth (a child born in circumstances where there would have been a lawful termination or conception would not have occurred). In Groom v Selby [2001] EWCA Civ 1522 (Unreported, Broker LJ, Hale LJ and Steele J, 18 October 2001). Hale LJ stated at [28] that ‘the principles applicable in wrongful birth cases cannot sensibly be distinguished from the principles applicable in wrongful conception cases’. See discussion in Thomas (2003).

  24. 24.

    Allenby, supra note 14.

  25. 25.

    Id per Blanchard J at [71] and Elias CJ at [9].

  26. 26.

    Id per Elias CJ at [30 and 31].

  27. 27.

    Id per Blanchard J at [80].

  28. 28.

    Cumberland v Accident Compensation Corporation [2014] 2 NZLR 373 (CA).

  29. 29.

    Id at [42].

  30. 30.

    Id at [45].

  31. 31.

    Id at [55].

  32. 32.

    McGougan v DePuy International Ltd [2017] 2 NZLR 119 (HC).

  33. 33.

    2001 Act, supra note 5 Pt 4.

  34. 34.

    Id at Pt 5.

  35. 35.

    Id at s 27.

  36. 36.

    Id at s 26(1)(c).

  37. 37.

    Id at s 21B.

  38. 38.

    Id at s 21.

  39. 39.

    Queenstown Lakes District Council v Palmer [1999] 1 NZLR 549 (CA).

  40. 40.

    Id at 556.

  41. 41.

    Brownlie v Good Health Wanganui Ltd [2005] NZAR 289 (CA).

  42. 42.

    Id at [14].

  43. 43.

    Id at [12]–[13].

  44. 44.

    Sivasubramaniam v Yarrall [2005] 3 NZLR 268 (HC).

  45. 45.

    White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1999] 1 All ER 1 (HL).

  46. 46.

    van Soest v Residual Health Management Unit [2000] 1 NZLR 179 (CA) at [21].

  47. 47.

    Id.

  48. 48.

    Id.

  49. 49.

    L v Robinson [2000] 3 NZLR 499 (HC).

  50. 50.

    2001 Act, supra note 5 s 21.

  51. 51.

    Id s 21.

  52. 52.

    van Soest, supra note 45.

  53. 53.

    Id.

  54. 54.

    Hobson v Attorney-General [2007] 1 NZLR 374 (CA).

  55. 55.

    2001 Act, supra note 5 at s 21B(2)(a) and 21B(6). It must also be an event of the type expected to cause mental injury to people generally s21B(2)(b).

  56. 56.

    Donselaar, supra note 2.

  57. 57.

    Couch v Attorney-General (No 2) [2010] NZSC 27, [2010] 3 NZLR 149.

  58. 58.

    2001 Act, supra note 5 at s 319(1).

  59. 59.

    Law Reform Act 1936 (NZ) s (2)(a).

  60. 60.

    [2008] 3 NZLR 725 (SC).

  61. 61.

    Id at [80]-[81].

  62. 62.

    Id per Tipping J at [112].

  63. 63.

    (2013) 24 FRNZ 435 (HC).

  64. 64.

    As she was raped psychiatric injury would have been covered under the 2001 Act.

  65. 65.

    [2007] 1 NZLR 196 (HC).

  66. 66.

    Couch, supra note 60 per Tipping J at [84].

  67. 67.

    Manning (2015b).

  68. 68.

    A v Bottrill [2003] 2 NZLR 721 (PC).

  69. 69.

    Id at [20].

  70. 70.

    Id at [26].

  71. 71.

    Id at [23].

  72. 72.

    Couch (No 2), supra note 57.

  73. 73.

    Id.

  74. 74.

    Id per Tipping J at [135].

  75. 75.

    Id per McGrath J at [241].

  76. 76.

    Id per Blanchard J at [58] and Wilson J at [254].

  77. 77.

    Id per Tipping J at [161].

  78. 78.

    Manning, supra note 67.

  79. 79.

    S v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 450 (CA). See also Couch (No 2), supra note 57 per Tipping J at [158].

  80. 80.

    L, supra note 49. See also R v Eade DC Auckland NP3604/97, 12 May 2000—award of $27,000 in exemplary damages for breach of fiduciary duty by a primal healer who had a sexual relationship with a client with a prior history of sexual abuse.

  81. 81.

    For example, Van de Wetering v Capital Coast Health Limited HC Wellington CP368/98, 19/05/2000; 6 Maulolo v Hutt Valley Health Corporation Limited HC Wellington CP212/99, 20/07/2001 where the courts found insufficient proximity. See also S, supra note 79.

  82. 82.

    2001 Act, supra note 5 at s 319(2).

  83. 83.

    Manning, supra note 67.

  84. 84.

    Committee of Inquiry into Allegations Concerning the Treatment of Cervical Cancer at National Women's Hospital and into Other Related Matters, The report of the Committee of Inquiry into Allegations Concerning the Treatment of Cervical Cancer at National Women's Hospital and into Other Related Matters, (Government Printing Office, 1988) at 172 (Cartwright Report).

  85. 85.

    Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 (NZ) s 6.

  86. 86.

    The Code is a regulation (Health and Disability Commissioner (Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights) Regulations 1996 (NZ)) issued pursuant to the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 (NZ).

  87. 87.

    The role of the Director of Proceedings is established under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 (NZ) s 15 and is to act independently of the Health and Disability Commissioner. The functions of the Director are set out in section 49 and include a decision as to whether to bring disciplinary proceedings or proceeding before the Human Rights Review Tribunal and to institute the proceedings.

  88. 88.

    The Human Rights Review Tribunal considers human rights, privacy and Health and Disability Commissioner cases.

  89. 89.

    Health and Disability Commissioner Act, supra note 84 s 45(2)(f).

  90. 90.

    Id s 44(3).

  91. 91.

    Id s 50.

  92. 92.

    Id s 50(4).

  93. 93.

    Id s 51. There have been few cases brought by aggrieved persons or their agents see for example, ABC v XYZ [2013] NZHRRT 25 and Marshall v Idea Services Limited [2020] NZHRRT 9.

  94. 94.

    Health and Disability Commissioner Act supra note 84 at s 56; Marks v Director of Health and Disability Proceedings [2009] NZCA 151, (2009) 3 NZLR 108 (CA). See also P v Iyengar [2011] NZHRRT 2 and P v Iyengar [2012] NZHRRT 9. While the Court of Appeal in Marks left open the possibility that a father of a baby injured during the birth process could be an aggrieved person, the Court of Appeal subsequently rejected this in P v F [2015] 3 NZLR 758.

  95. 95.

    Manning (2018) at 636.

  96. 96.

    Id at 639.

  97. 97.

    Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2009] 1 NZLR 1.

  98. 98.

    Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994, supra note 84 at s 54.

  99. 99.

    Id at s 52(2).

  100. 100.

    Id at s 57.

  101. 101.

    Id at s 54(4).

  102. 102.

    Director of Proceedings v Emms [2013] NZHRRT 5 at [104].

  103. 103.

    Id at [106].

  104. 104.

    Manning, supra note 67.

  105. 105.

    Director of Proceedings v Emms, supra note 102.

  106. 106.

    Marshall, supra note 93 at 85.

  107. 107.

    Marks, supra note 94.

  108. 108.

    Id.

  109. 109.

    Director of Proceedings v O’Neil [2001] NZAR 59 (HC) at [39].

  110. 110.

    Id at [40].

  111. 111.

    Director of Proceedings v Emms, supra note 102 at [111].

  112. 112.

    Manning, supra note 67.

  113. 113.

    Simpson v Attorney-General [1994] 3 NZLR 667 (CA).

  114. 114.

    Wilding v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 787 (CA).

  115. 115.

    Manning, supra note 67.

  116. 116.

    Tribunal (2019).

  117. 117.

    Id at xv.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian Centre for Health Law Research, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

    Fiona McDonald

  2. Department of Bioethics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada

    Fiona McDonald

  3. New Zealand Centre for Public Law, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

    Fiona McDonald

Authors
  1. Fiona McDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fiona McDonald .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

    Vera Lúcia Raposo

  2. South Western Clinical School, Liverpool Hospital, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Roy G. Beran

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

McDonald, F. (2022). Medical Liability in New Zealand. In: Raposo, V.L., Beran, R.G. (eds) Medical Liability in Asia and Australasia. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 94. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4855-7_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4855-7_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-16-4854-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-16-4855-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation