Health Care Complaints Commission v Metelerkamp (No 2) [2018] NSWCATOD 66

Health Care Complaints Commission v Metelerkamp (No 2) [2018] NSWCATOD 66

The abandoned allegation concerning the respondent's report had no proper basis and the complainant delayed in referring relevant information to its expert, so fairness required the complainant to pay the respondent's costs thrown away by that amendment. However, the respondent was not entitled to 50% of all costs to 19 October 2017 because the withdrawn issue did not account for that arbitrary proportion and the broader relationship evidence remained relevant. The complainant was otherwise entitled to its costs because it succeeded in establishing unsatisfactory professional conduct, the amended evidentiary matters were relevant to protective orders, and no disentitling conduct by the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Health Practitioner Disciplinary Proceedings Costs Application / Ancillary Costs Determination After Substantive Finding of Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct
Outcome
The respondent obtained a limited costs order for costs thrown away by the abandoned allegation. The complainant otherwise obtained its costs of the substantive proceedings, excluding costs relating to that abandoned matter. Each party was ordered to pay their own costs of the costs proceedings.
Legal Topics
['costs of Proceedings' 'costs Thrown Away by Amendment' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'discretion to Award Costs']
['health Practitioner Regulation' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs of Proceedings' 'costs Thrown Away by Amendment' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'discretion to Award Costs']

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

Health Practitioner Disciplinary Proceedings Costs Application / Ancillary Costs Determination After Substantive Finding of Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent was entitled to costs thrown away by the complainant's abandonment of an allegation concerning the report prepared for patient A's partial permanent disability benefits application." "Whether the complainant was otherwise entitled to its costs of the substantive proceedings despite not establishing professional misconduct and despite the respondent's admission of unsatisfactory professional conduct." 'Whether either party should receive costs of the ancillary costs proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The abandoned allegation concerning the respondent's report had no proper basis and the complainant delayed in referring relevant information to its expert, so fairness required the complainant to pay the respondent's costs thrown away by that amendment. However, the respondent was not entitled to 50% of all costs to 19 October 2017 because the withdrawn issue did not account for that arbitrary proportion and the broader relationship evidence remained relevant. The complainant was otherwise entitled to its costs because it succeeded in establishing unsatisfactory professional conduct, the amended evidentiary matters were relevant to protective orders, and no disentitling conduct by the...

Court Disposition

The respondent obtained a limited costs order for costs thrown away by the abandoned allegation. The complainant otherwise obtained its costs of the substantive proceedings, excluding costs relating to that abandoned matter. Each party was ordered to pay their own costs of the costs proceedings.

Orders

  • ['The complainant is to pay the costs of the respondent thrown away by reason of the amendment to the proceedings by which the complainant abandoned the allegation that the respondent "failed to provide adequate or appropriate psychological services for patient A" in that she prepared a report for the patient\'s...