Health Care Complaints Commission v Mooney [2022] NSWCATOD 43

Health Care Complaints Commission v Mooney [2022] NSWCATOD 43

The Tribunal refused to vary the existing non-publication orders because, taking into account the need to protect patient confidentiality and privacy, the absence of direct evidence from patient A's family, the opposition of patient B's immediate family, and the lack of any additional public benefit in publishing the patients' names, the orders were and remained desirable under s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary Non Publication Orders Under S 64(3) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw) in Occupational Disciplinary Proceedings / Procedural Ruling
Outcome
The Application is refused. No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'patient Confidentiality' 'variation of Protective Orders']
['administrative Law' 'health Practitioner Regulation' 'occupational Discipline'] ['non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'patient Confidentiality' 'variation of Protective Orders']

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

Application to Vary Non Publication Orders Under S 64(3) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw) in Occupational Disciplinary Proceedings / Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether existing non-publication orders should be varied so that the names of patients A and B could be published while continuing to prohibit publication of patient C's name." 'Whether the non-publication orders remained desirable under s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), having regard to open justice, patient privacy, public interest and the operation of health practitioner disciplinary proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal refused to vary the existing non-publication orders because, taking into account the need to protect patient confidentiality and privacy, the absence of direct evidence from patient A's family, the opposition of patient B's immediate family, and the lack of any additional public benefit in publishing the patients' names, the orders were and remained desirable under s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).

Court Disposition

The Application is refused. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The Application is refused.' 'No order as to the costs of the Application.' 'Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the Application filed on 5 November 2021, the affidavit of Ms McClymont affirmed on 11 January 2022, all submissions made in respect of the Application and...