Gue v Dental Board of Australia

[2026] SASC 11

Supreme Court of South Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Administrative Tribunals
3. › South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
4. › Appeal by way of rehearing
5. › Scope of appellate review
6. › Natural limitations of review on the record
7. › Whether process error in fact-finding vitiates orders
8. › Whether remittal or appellate determination appropriate
9. › South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SA), s 71
1. Evidence
2. › Admissibility
3. › Credibility evidence
4. › Prior inconsistent statements
5. › Whether investigator's note established prior inconsistent statement
6. › Misapprehension of agreed facts about provenance of note
7. › Evidence Act 1929 (SA), s 28
1. Evidence
2. › Admissibility
3. › Tendency, coincidence and propensity
4. › Distinction between propensity reasoning and improbability reasoning
5. › Categories of improbability reasoning
6. › Whether tribunal engaged in propensity reasoning disavowed by prosecuting party
7. › Evidence Act 1929 (SA), ss 34O, 34P
1. Professions and Trades
2. › Health care professionals
3. › Dentists
4. › Disciplinary proceedings
5. › Inappropriate touching allegations
6. › Procedural fairness
7. › Whether tribunal bound to limit reasoning to approach urged by disciplinary body
8. › Whether disavowal of propensity reasoning by disciplinary body and subsequent use by tribunal denied procedural fairness

Quick Take

In disciplinary proceedings before SACAT, if a tribunal engages in propensity or disposition reasoning that has been disavowed by the disciplinary body, the respondent may be denied procedural fairness even where the tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence, because the respondent was not afforded an opportunity to argue against the use of the evidence in that way or the weight it should be given.