Medical Board of Australia v Arunkalaivanan

[2023] WASCA 117

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Review of fact-finding by administrative tribunal
4. › Illogicality or irrationality in reasoning process
5. › Whether Tribunal's reasons for not accepting complainant's evidence were illogical or irrational
6. › Whether error of law established
7. › State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 105(2)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Appeals from administrative tribunals
3. › Appeal on question of law only
4. › Distinction between error of law and error of fact
5. › Legally erroneous fact-finding
6. › Whether illogical or irrational reasoning vitiates factual findings
7. › State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 105(1), s 105(2), s 105(9)
1. Evidence
2. › Credibility of witnesses
3. › Assessment by tribunal of fact
4. › Recent complaint evidence
5. › Weight to be given to contemporaneous text messages
6. › Whether failure to give determinative weight to recent complaint evidence was illogical or irrational
1. Professions and Trades
2. › Medical practitioner
3. › Disciplinary proceedings
4. › Allegations of sexual misconduct
5. › Tribunal not satisfied evidence of complainant was truthful, accurate or reliable
6. › No case to answer
7. › Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA)

Quick Take

Illogicality or irrationality in fact-finding critical to an ultimate conclusion of the WA State Administrative Tribunal amounts to an error of law appealable under s 105(2) of the SAT Act, but the same stringent threshold applies as in judicial review for jurisdictional error. Where a tribunal relies on multiple reasons for not accepting a witness's evidence, the appellant must demonstrate illogicality or irrationality in the reasoning as a whole — it is not sufficient to impugn one of the reasons. The doctrine cannot be deployed as a back-door means of challenging the weight given to evidence or the merits of credibility findings.