Lim v Medical Council of New Zealand [2016] NZHC 908
Because the applicant conceded there was no basis to maintain non-publication in the High Court and abandoned related appeals, the Court revoked the non-publication order by consent; however, the separate order restricting access to the Court file was properly retained and remains in force.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] NZHC 908
- Parties
- Applicant: David Kang Huat Lim; Respondent: Medical Council of New Zealand
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 5 May 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Section 113 Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 / Leave to Appeal Refused; Supplementary Judgment Resolving Non Publication Order
- Outcome
- Non-publication order revoked by consent; leave to appeal previously refused; restriction on access to the Court file retained.
- Legal Topics
- Interim Suspension of Practising Certificate, Name Suppression/non Publication, Leave to Appeal, Access to Court File
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
David Kang Huat Lim
Applicant
Medical Council of New Zealand
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 113 Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 / Leave to Appeal Refused; Supplementary Judgment Resolving Non Publication Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s113 HPCAA
- 2 Whether the non-publication (name suppression) order should continue
- 3 Whether the restriction on access to the court file should remain in force
Ratio Decidendi
Because the applicant conceded there was no basis to maintain non-publication in the High Court and abandoned related appeals, the Court revoked the non-publication order by consent; however, the separate order restricting access to the Court file was properly retained and remains in force.
Court Disposition
Non-publication order revoked by consent; leave to appeal previously refused; restriction on access to the Court file retained.
Orders
- Revocation of the non-publication order at [53] of the re-issued judgment so there is no prohibition on publication of Dr Lim's name or identifying particulars.
- Confirmation that the order at [50] of the re-issued judgment restricting access to the Court file without the leave of a Judge remains in force.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Lim v Medical Council of New Zealand [2016] NZHC 908 [5 May 2016]NO PERSON SHALL HAVE ACCESS TO THE COURT FILE (OTHERTHAN THIS JUDGMENT) WITHOUT THE LEAVE OF A JUDGE OF THISCOURT. THE ORDER SHALL NOT APPLY TO COUNSEL OR THESOLICITORS FOR THE PARTIES; DR LIM; AND ANY DULYAUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF NEWZEALANDIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYCIV-2016-485-124[2016] NZHC 908IN THE MATTER of an appeal against a decision of theDistrict CourtUNDER Section 113 of the Health PractitionersCompetence Assurance Act 2003BETWEEN DAVID KANG HUAT LIMApplicantAND MEDICAL COUNCIL OF NEWZEALANDRespondentOn the PapersAppearances: H Waalkens QC for Applicant/AppellantD La Hood and A Garrick for RespondentJudgment: 5 May 2016SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD JThis judgment was delivered by me on 5 May 2016 at 4:00 pmPursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy Registrar[1] On 22 March 2016 I gave judgment refusing the applicant, Dr Lim, leave to appeal against a decision of the Medical Council of New Zealand, ordering interim suspension of Dr Lim's practicing certificate ('the re-issued judgment').1[2] At the hearing I made an interim Order for suppression of publication of Dr Lim's name and continued that order in the re-issued judgment until the further order of the Court.[3] I said that in the ordinary course of events I would not consider there to beany basis to suppress Dr Lim's name from publication in the context of thisproceeding and noted that Mr Waalkens QC, Dr Lim's counsel, properly concededthat view. I noted also, however, that it was agreed that name suppression should be determined by the District Court in the context of the criminal proceedings against Dr Lim.[4] I have received a consent memorandum signed by Mr Waalkens QC and Mr La Hood, representing the Medical Council, informing me that Dr Lim has abandoned his appeal against the refusal of the District Court to continue interim name suppression pending his trial. Counsel request revocation of the suppression order in this proceeding.[5] By consent, therefore, I revoke the non-publication order at [53] of the re- issued judgment, with the result that there is no prohibition on publication of Dr Lim's name and any particulars which might identify him.[6] To avoid any doubt, I confirm that the order at [50] of the re-issued judgment, restricting access to the Court file without the leave of a Judge of the Court, remains in force.Toogood J1 Lim v Medical Council of New Zealand [2016] NZHC 485.