Medical Board of Australia v Woollard

(2017) 51 WAR 32; [2017] WASCA 64

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Abuse of process
3. › Stay or dismissal of proceedings
4. › Disciplinary proceedings
5. › Delay in institution and prosecution of proceedings
6. › Whether delay unreasonable or unexplained
7. › Whether prejudice established
8. › Whether continuation of proceedings so unfairly and unjustifiably oppressive as to constitute abuse of process
9. › State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 47
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Abuse of process
3. › Public interest in disciplinary proceedings
4. › Health practitioner regulation
5. › Whether public interest in pursuing allegations going to fitness to practise
6. › Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010 (WA), s 3(2)(a)
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal from State Administrative Tribunal
3. › Appeal on question of law only
4. › Whether finding manifestly unreasonable
5. › No evidence or no probative evidence to support finding
6. › Whether finding inconsistent with primary facts found by Tribunal
7. › State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 105
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal from State Administrative Tribunal
3. › Power to make substitutive orders
4. › Whether only one conclusion open on correct application of law to facts
5. › State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 105(9)

Quick Take

In health practitioner disciplinary proceedings, allegations going to fitness to practise (such as inadequate training and false representations to obtain accreditation) engage a public interest that extends beyond the specific procedures at issue and cannot be negated merely because existing restrictions already limit the practitioner's practice. Delay in investigating and prosecuting disciplinary complaints must be assessed against the actual steps taken during the period, and a finding of unexplained delay cannot be sustained where the evidence shows investigative steps were being taken. The threshold for abuse of process in disciplinary proceedings remains high — it must be shown that continuation would be so unfairly and unjustifiably oppressive as to constitute an abuse, which requires exceptional or extreme circumstances.