Health Care Complaints Commission v Rahman (No 2) [2023] NSWCATOD 68

Health Care Complaints Commission v Rahman (No 2) [2023] NSWCATOD 68

A short period of cancellation and three-month disqualification would be sufficient for public protection in this case, given the history of professional misconduct and repeated failures to improve, but declining a prohibition order as the Respondent was not found to pose a substantial risk to public health and safety. The Respondent is ordered to pay 50% of the Applicant's costs based on admissions falling short of findings and exercise of discretion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Disciplinary Proceedings / Determination of Protective Orders and Costs
Outcome
Had the Respondent still been registered, his registration would have been cancelled and he would have been disqualified from registration for three months; the National Board to record that fact; Respondent to pay 50% of Applicant's costs; prohibition order declined.
Legal Topics
['medical Misconduct' 'professional Discipline' 'protective Orders' 'costs']
['health Law' 'administrative Law' 'professional Regulation'] ['medical Misconduct' 'professional Discipline' 'protective Orders' '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

Disciplinary Proceedings / Determination of Protective Orders and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What is the appropriate protective order to ensure public protection following findings of professional misconduct against the Respondent?' 'Is the Respondent a substantial risk to the health and safety of the public warranting a prohibition order?' "What proportion of the Applicant's costs should the Respondent pay?"]

Ratio Decidendi

A short period of cancellation and three-month disqualification would be sufficient for public protection in this case, given the history of professional misconduct and repeated failures to improve, but declining a prohibition order as the Respondent was not found to pose a substantial risk to public health and safety. The Respondent is ordered to pay 50% of the Applicant's costs based on admissions falling short of findings and exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Had the Respondent still been registered, his registration would have been cancelled and he would have been disqualified from registration for three months; the National Board to record that fact; Respondent to pay 50% of Applicant's costs; prohibition order declined.

Orders

  • ['Had the Respondent still been registered, the Tribunal would have cancelled his registration and disqualified the Respondent from being registered for three months.' 'The National Board with which the Respondent was registered shall record the fact that the Tribunal would have cancelled his registration.' 'The...