Stanford v DePuy International Ltd (No 3) [2015] FCA 325

Stanford v DePuy International Ltd (No 3) [2015] FCA 325

The balance of paragraphs 90 to 93 of Professor Graves' third affidavit was rejected because the respondents could not fairly test the detailed analysis without access to the underlying raw data. Section 124Y did not justify a blanket refusal to provide the data: the applicants were required first to attempt to exclude material identifying, expressly or by implication, particular individuals such as patients and surgeons. The Court would revisit admissibility if the underlying data were provided in a form that did not identify particular individuals.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Evidence Admissibility Ruling / Ruling on Respondents' Objections to Paragraphs 90 to 93 of the Third Affidavit of Professor Stephen Graves
Outcome
The respondents' objection was substantially upheld; only the penultimate sentence of paragraph 93 was admitted, and the balance of paragraphs 90 to 93 was rejected pending provision of non-identifying underlying data.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Affidavit Evidence' 'disclosure of Underlying Medical Data' 'declared Quality Assurance Activity Confidentiality' 'meaning of "individual"' 'fairness to Opposing Parties']
['evidence' 'health Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['admissibility of Affidavit Evidence' 'disclosure of Underlying Medical Data' 'declared Quality Assurance Activity Confidentiality' 'meaning of "individual"' 'fairness to Opposing Parties']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Evidence Admissibility Ruling / Ruling on Respondents' Objections to Paragraphs 90 to 93 of the Third Affidavit of Professor Stephen Graves

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether paragraphs 90 to 93 of Professor Graves' third affidavit should be admitted where the raw data underlying the analysis were not provided to the respondents." 'Whether s 124Y of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) prohibited disclosure or production of the Registry data underlying the affidavit evidence.' 'Whether information identifying hospitals falls within the phrase "a particular individual or particular individuals" in s 124Y.' 'Whether data could be disclosed in a redacted form that did not identify patients or surgeons expressly or by implication.']

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of paragraphs 90 to 93 of Professor Graves' third affidavit was rejected because the respondents could not fairly test the detailed analysis without access to the underlying raw data. Section 124Y did not justify a blanket refusal to provide the data: the applicants were required first to attempt to exclude material identifying, expressly or by implication, particular individuals such as patients and surgeons. The Court would revisit admissibility if the underlying data were provided in a form that did not identify particular individuals.

Court Disposition

The respondents' objection was substantially upheld; only the penultimate sentence of paragraph 93 was admitted, and the balance of paragraphs 90 to 93 was rejected pending provision of non-identifying underlying data.

Orders

  • ['The penultimate sentence of paragraph 93 of the third affidavit, sworn 5 February 2015, of Professor Graves be admitted.' 'The balance of paragraphs 90 to 93 of the third affidavit, sworn 5 February 2015, of Professor Graves be rejected.']