In disciplinary proceedings before the State Administrative Tribunal, a finding that a practitioner gave dishonest evidence may only be used in determining penalty if either: (a) the complaint has been amended to include the dishonesty allegation; or (b) the proceedings were conducted so that the practitioner was on notice of the risk of such a finding and had adequate opportunity to deal with it. An allegation of dishonesty should appear from the application or statement of issues, facts and contentions and should not be left to be inferred from witness statements. The obligation under ss 9 and 32(2) of the SAT Act to act fairly and according to the substantial merits does not limit the obligation under s 32(1) to comply with natural justice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 48 later cases that cite this judgment.
9 of the 48 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.