D'Souza v Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists

[2005] VSC 161

Supreme Court of Victoria

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Certiorari
4. › Decisions of domestic tribunals
5. › Professional association
6. › Whether decision of review panel of professional college amenable to judicial review
7. › Whether contractual relationship sufficient to ground judicial review
8. › Whether monopoly power or public element required
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Certiorari
4. › Apprehended bias
5. › Whether ground of apprehended bias available against domestic tribunal of professional association
6. › Distinction between judicial and quasi-judicial bodies and domestic tribunals
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Certiorari
4. › Procedural fairness
5. › Fair procedures for conduct of review by domestic tribunal
6. › Whether review panel misunderstood its jurisdiction
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Certiorari
4. › Discretionary refusal of relief
5. › Whether relief should be refused where applicant had alternative remedy
6. › Whether futility of relief a ground for refusal

Quick Take

Decisions of review panels of professional associations whose jurisdiction derives from contract, not statute, are not amenable to judicial review by way of certiorari, even where the association exercises significant influence over the ability to practise a profession. The ground of apprehended bias (Ebner v Official Trustee) is not available against domestic tribunals of professional associations. A professional association's maintenance of examination requirements for fellowship does not constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade where the requirements serve legitimate objects of maintaining professional standards, even where a candidate has extensive clinical experience.