Saville v Health Care Complaints Commission & Anor

[2006] NSWCA 298

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Medical Practitioners
2. › Disciplinary proceedings
3. › Appeal from Professional Standards Committee to Medical Tribunal
4. › Appeal from Medical Tribunal to Court of Appeal
5. › Whether right of appeal exists under s 90(1)
6. › Whether practitioner is 'person about whom a complaint is referred to the Tribunal'
7. › Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW), ss 51, 87, 90
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Prerogative relief
4. › Certiorari
5. › Decision of Medical Tribunal
6. › Whether jurisdictional error or error of law on face of record
7. › Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69
1. Administrative Law
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Prejudgment
4. › Tribunal indicating preliminary views before hearing
5. › Whether indication of preliminary views constitutes prejudgment
6. › Whether adequate opportunity to be heard was afforded
1. Administrative Law
2. › Reasons for decision
3. › Adequacy of reasons
4. › Whether brevity of reasons constitutes error of law
5. › Whether failure to give reasons constitutes jurisdictional error

Quick Take

There is no right of appeal under s 90(1) of the Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW) from a decision of the Medical Tribunal on appeal from a Professional Standards Committee under s 87; the only remedy is prerogative relief under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW). A tribunal does not deny procedural fairness by indicating its preliminary views on proposed consent orders at an early stage, provided the parties are given an adequate opportunity to present further material and submissions. A challenge to a tribunal's failure to consider matters that the applicant failed to put before the tribunal does not establish error of law based on failure to take into account relevant considerations.