› where the applicant argues that a reasonable apprehension of bias arises out of the appointments of the second and third respondents as health service investigators
› whether a finding of reasonable apprehension of bias can be sustained against the second and third respondents
Administrative Law
› JUDICIAL REVIEW
› GROUNDS OF REVIEW
› PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS
› BIAS
› GENERALLY
› where the applicant argues that the failure of the first respondent to provide material relied upon in the Clinical Review Report and the Health Service Investigation Report constitutes actual bias or gives rise to an apprehension of bias
› whether a finding of actual bias or apprehension of bias can be sustained against the first respondent
Administrative Law
› JUDICIAL REVIEW
› GROUNDS OF REVIEW
› PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS
› GENERALLY
› where the applicant argues that the first to fifth respondents failed to respond to his concerns about the material relied upon by the health service investigators and clinical reviewers
› whether the failure to respond to the applicant’s concerns about the material relied upon by the health service investigators and clinical reviewers amounted to a breach of the rules of natural justice
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld), s 156
Case Details
Citation[2015] QSC 111
CourtQSC
JurisdictionQueensland
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 15 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 15 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.
