The Tribunal found Mr Fairbanks guilty of professional misconduct on both allegations (inappropriate touching and inappropriate communication), reprimanded him, suspended his registration for six months, and imposed post-suspension conditions requiring one-on-one education and mentoring; the Board's application for costs was refused. A global determination was applied where the proven conduct arose from a single consultation and was 'interwoven'. On costs under s 195 of the National Law, the Tribunal confirmed that there must be 'something in the particular proceeding' beyond the Board's success on serious allegations to make a costs order appropriate; a practitioner who puts the Board to proof without running unmeritorious defences or causing delay will not ordinarily face a costs order. The absence of sexual motivation was treated as a significant mitigating factor distinguishing the case from more serious boundary-violation authorities.
The full text is available to signed-in members.