Breen v Williams

Facts

The plaintiff, Mrs Breen, sought access to her medical records held by her doctor, Dr Williams, following treatment for breast implants. She argued that the doctor-patient relationship gave rise to fiduciary duties that obliged the doctor to provide her with access to those records. The doctor refused access, and Mrs Breen commenced proceedings to compel disclosure.

Issues

1. Whether the doctor-patient relationship is a fiduciary relationship. 2. Whether fiduciary duties, if arising, could impose a positive obligation on a doctor to grant a patient access to medical records. 3. Whether Australian law should follow the Canadian approach in recognising a fiduciary duty of disclosure in the doctor-patient context.

Holding

The High Court held unanimously that, even if the doctor-patient relationship could give rise to fiduciary obligations in certain respects, fiduciary duties are proscriptive in nature and cannot impose positive obligations on a fiduciary to act for the benefit of the beneficiary. Accordingly, no fiduciary duty obliged Dr Williams to grant Mrs Breen access to her medical records.

Ratio decidendi

Fiduciary duties are proscriptive, not prescriptive: they operate to restrain a fiduciary from acting in a manner that is contrary to the interests of the beneficiary (particularly by prohibiting conflicts of interest and unauthorised profits), but they do not impose positive obligations requiring the fiduciary to confer a benefit or take affirmative action for the beneficiary's advantage.

Obiter dicta

Several members of the Court expressed reservations about the wholesale importation of Canadian fiduciary doctrine into Australian law, warning against the expansion of fiduciary principles beyond their traditional scope. The Court also observed that rights of access to medical records are properly a matter for legislation rather than equitable intervention, and that the existence of concurrent contractual or tortious obligations does not, of itself, attract fiduciary characterisation.

Significance

Breen v Williams is the leading Australian authority on the proscriptive nature of fiduciary duties and is routinely cited to resist attempts to use fiduciary law as a vehicle for imposing positive obligations. It firmly distinguishes Australian equity from the broader, prescriptive approach adopted in Canadian jurisprudence, and confines the operation of fiduciary doctrine to its traditional prophylactic function.

Key authorities

• Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41applied
• Birtchnell v Equity Trustees, Executors and Agency Co Ltd Birtchnell v Equity Trustees, Executors and Agency Co Ltd (1929) 42 CLR 384cited
• Chan v Zacharia Chan v Zacharia (1984) 154 CLR 178cited
• McInerney v MacDonald McInerney v MacDonald [1992] 2 SCR 138distinguished
• Norberg v Wynrib Norberg v Wynrib [1992] 2 SCR 226distinguished
• Lac Minerals Ltd v International Corona Resources Ltd Lac Minerals Ltd v International Corona Resources Ltd [1989] 2 SCR 574considered