Shirlow Esme, Faunce Thomas
Globalisation and Health Project, College of Law, The Australian National University.
J Law Med. 2009 Aug;17(1):46-51.
The New South Wales Supreme Court has examined the statutory and common law duties of the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission and the New South Wales Medical Board in the recent case of Attorney General (NSW) v Bar-Mordecai [2008] NSWSC 774. The judgment establishes that a professional practice body investigating the alleged misconduct of a doctor will rarely be liable under Australian statutory or common law duties to compensate that doctor for harm arising as a result of negligent investigatory practices. In particular, it establishes that such a body owes no duty to take reasonable care to avoid psychiatric injury to a medical practitioner against whom a complaint has been lodged and whom it is investigating. It is argued that the differing approaches to the tort of negligent investigation in Canada and Australia stem from differences not only in policy values but in the legal frameworks used in each jurisdiction to determine the existence of duties of care at common law.
新南威尔士州最高法院在近期的总检察长（新南威尔士州）诉巴尔 - 莫迪凯案[2008] NSWSC 774中，审查了新南威尔士州医疗保健投诉委员会和新南威尔士州医学委员会的法定职责和普通法职责。该判决确定，调查医生涉嫌不当行为的专业执业机构，根据澳大利亚的法定或普通法职责，很少会因疏忽的调查行为导致的伤害而对该医生承担赔偿责任。特别是，该判决确定，这样的机构没有义务采取合理措施避免对被投诉并正在接受调查的医生造成精神伤害。有人认为，加拿大和澳大利亚对疏忽调查侵权行为的不同处理方式，不仅源于政策价值观的差异，还源于每个司法管辖区用于确定普通法中注意义务存在的法律框架的差异。
