Typically medical specialists must submit their credentials in order to provide services at a hospital. This way, health service organisations are able to ensure that practitioners are sufficiently qualified and experienced to practice with that particular organisation within a defined scope of practice (commonly referred to as an ‘accredited practitioner’). In applying to be accredited, practitioners will often be required to agree to abide by a range of by-laws, codes of conduct and policies. The question is; does this agreement create a contract? And if a contract is created, what are the implications for the health service?
The Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Bill 2016 (Vic) passed the Legislative Assembly on 24 November 2016 and received Royal Assent on 29 November 2016. The Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016 (Vic) (the Act) is set to commence on the earliest of a day to be proclaimed or 12 March 2018.
In this case, the High Court granted special leave to appeal from the decision in DC v State of New South Wales  NSWCA 198 (summarised in the November 2016 edition of the Case Law Update), in which the State of New South Wales (the State) was held liable for the failure of the Department of Youth and Community Services (the Department) to prevent the continuing sexual abuse of two children who were the subject of child protection proceedings in the 1970s and 1980s.
The Children Legislation Amendment (Reportable Conduct) Bill (Vic) which will amend the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005 (Vic) passed the Upper House of the Parliament of Victoria on 23 February 2017 and is awaiting Royal Assent. The Bill is due to commence on 1 September 2017 (unless it comes into force earlier).
Electronic signature technologies are increasingly used to execute documents used in commercial transactions. In this case, the New South Wales Court of Appeal held that a genuine electronic signature affixed to a personal guarantee by an unauthorised (and unknown) individual was ineffective to bind the apparent signatory. The implications of this case may appear concerning because it could be difficult for clients to determine whether a genuine electronic signature was affixed properly (binding) or improperly (non-binding). However, it should be noted that the case concerned a personal guarantee, not a document executed by an individual in their capacity as an officer of a company. Nevertheless, the case stands as a salient reminder to ensure that clients are aware of the nature of the parties with whom they are dealing. More specifically, to ensure that personal guarantees are properly executed by, or with the full knowledge of, the putative signatory.
This case concerned an appeal heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of a decision by the primary judge in the Federal Circuit Court to dismiss an application for associated discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) as an abuse of process on the basis that the Appellant had no reasonable prospect of success.
It is not uncommon for patients and community members to leave bequests to health services, community health organisations and research institutes. In many cases, the family of the deceased will be supportive of their relative’s wishes to leave money to the service. However, in some instances, family members will object to the bequest being made and will make a claim against the executor, or even against the beneficiary health service.
The consultation draft of the ‘Guide to Big Data and the Australian Privacy Principles’ was released by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner in May. The consultation period closed in July and we can expect a finalised Guide in the coming months. It is therefore timely to consider some of the key concepts in the big data and privacy conversation and how they apply to health services.
The Associations Incorporation Amendment Act 2016 (Tas) passed its third reading in the Upper House on 2 June 2016. The Act amends the Associations Incorporation Act 1964 (Tas) and commences on 1 October 2016. The main objective of the Act is to reduce the regulatory burden on Tasmanian incorporated associations who are also registered under the Commonwealth’s Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission.