Ng v NSW Health Care Complaints Commission [2010] NSWSC 1220

Ng v NSW Health Care Complaints Commission [2010] NSWSC 1220

The Tribunal's decision to deregister Mr Ng miscarried because it denied procedural fairness by rejecting as untruthful his evidence that he contacted doctors about excessive prescriptions when that allegation had not been put to him in cross-examination, and because it materially misunderstood the purport of Mr Mahony's inspection report and explanatory evidence. Those errors were significant to the Tribunal's conclusions about remorse, continuing unfitness and the appropriate protective orders, so the deregistration order could not safely stand.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Disciplinary Orders of the Pharmacy Tribunal of New South Wales Under S 92 of the Pharmacy Practice Act 2006, With Reference to S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 / Supreme Court Principal Judgment Determining Appeal and Remitting Matter for Further Determination of Appropriate Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed; deregistration order quashed; registration reinstated; matter remitted to the Tribunal for determination of appropriate orders.
Legal Topics
['deregistration of Pharmacist' 'professional Misconduct' 'continuing Unfitness to Practise' 'procedural Fairness' 'browne V Dunn' 'error of Law' 'mistake of Fact' 'appellate Review of Disciplinary Discretion']
['administrative Law' 'health Practitioner Regulation' 'professional Discipline' 'pharmacy Law'] ['deregistration of Pharmacist' 'professional Misconduct' 'continuing Unfitness to Practise' 'procedural Fairness' 'browne V Dunn' 'error of Law' 'mistake of Fact' 'appellate Review of Disciplinary Discretion']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Disciplinary Orders of the Pharmacy Tribunal of New South Wales Under S 92 of the Pharmacy Practice Act 2006, With Reference to S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 / Supreme Court Principal Judgment Determining Appeal and Remitting Matter for Further Determination of Appropriate Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Pharmacy Tribunal denied procedural fairness by rejecting as untruthful Mr Ng's evidence that he contacted prescribing doctors when that allegation had not been put to him in cross-examination." "Whether the Tribunal misunderstood the significance of Mr Mahony's inspection report and evidence concerning the state of Mr Ng's pharmacy and his current fitness to practise." "Whether errors affected the Tribunal's exercise of discretion to cancel Mr Ng's registration and prevent review for two years." 'Whether the Supreme Court should itself determine consequential disciplinary orders or remit the matter to the Tribunal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's decision to deregister Mr Ng miscarried because it denied procedural fairness by rejecting as untruthful his evidence that he contacted doctors about excessive prescriptions when that allegation had not been put to him in cross-examination, and because it materially misunderstood the purport of Mr Mahony's inspection report and explanatory evidence. Those errors were significant to the Tribunal's conclusions about remorse, continuing unfitness and the appropriate protective orders, so the deregistration order could not safely stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; deregistration order quashed; registration reinstated; matter remitted to the Tribunal for determination of appropriate orders.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed.' 'The order for the deregistration of the appellant is quashed.' "The appellant's registration is reinstated." 'The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for determination of the appropriate orders based upon its findings that the complaints were proved.' 'The parties have seven days in which...