Not a medical claim but of interest as an unusual precedent is the matter of Jane Doe v XYZ [2019] VSC 176, where the defendant successfully sought a pseudonym order in respect of all court documents.
The plaintiff brought a claim for trespass to the person in respect of a consensual sexual relationship. She alleged that she was in a two year relationship with the married defendant (a lawyer), who represented to her that the relationship was sexually monogamous, such representations having been made in order to induce the plaintiff to have sex with him without prophylactic protection. She alleged that, in fact, the defendant had sex with a number of different people, of different genders, over the course of the relationship, including sex workers, and in some cases did not use prophylactic protection.
The court held at [20] – [21]:
The defendant should be granted a pseudonym order. First, there is cogent evidence that there is a real risk that the defendant will suffer physical and/or psychological harm should his identity be disclosed in the context of the allegations made in the statement of claim and the admissions and other allegations made in the proposed amended defence. Secondly, I agree that there is a real risk that the defendant will be deterred from properly defending this proceeding, and there is evidence that the defendant has been so deterred to date.
This is not a case of the Court protecting the defendant from the consequences of his allegedly morally questionable conduct, as suggested by the plaintiff, or a case where there is merely a risk of embarrassment and/or discomfort being caused to the defendant. Further, the fact that the conduct alleged by paragraphs 1 and 7 of the statement of claim is not illegal conduct does not alter the fact that a great many members of the community, particularly those with established families, regardless of their public profile or religious affiliation, would be stressed and distressed by allegations that not only had they breached their marital obligations, but had engaged in promiscuous behaviour, had multiple contacts with sex workers of different genders and/or gender orientation, and had conducted themselves without regard to the sexual health of their partners. That stress would no doubt be compounded exponentially by the fear that such allegations would be made public.