Health Care Complaints Commission v Thornton [2025] NSWCATOD 12

Health Care Complaints Commission v Thornton [2025] NSWCATOD 12

Because the evidence showed service had already occurred in accordance with the NCAT Rules—by leaving documents at the respondent’s residential address, which matched electoral records—and there was no evidence the address was incorrect or service was otherwise impractical, an order for substituted service was not warranted. Notice had been legally effected, permitting the proceedings to proceed without the respondent.

Parties
Applicant: Health Care Complaints Commission; Respondent: Caine Thornton
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Substituted Service in Disciplinary Proceedings / Interlocutory/procedural Ruling
Outcome
Application for substituted service refused.
Legal Topics
Service of Documents, Substituted Service, Notice Requirements, Procedural Fairness, Disciplinary Proceedings
Occupational Regulation Health Practitioner Discipline Service of Documents Substituted Service Notice Requirements Procedural Fairness Disciplinary Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Health Care Complaints Commission

Applicant

Caine Thornton

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Substituted Service in Disciplinary Proceedings / Interlocutory/procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for substituted service should be made for service of documents on a respondent in disciplinary proceedings under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law 2009 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

Because the evidence showed service had already occurred in accordance with the NCAT Rules—by leaving documents at the respondent’s residential address, which matched electoral records—and there was no evidence the address was incorrect or service was otherwise impractical, an order for substituted service was not warranted. Notice had been legally effected, permitting the proceedings to proceed without the respondent.

Court Disposition

Application for substituted service refused.

Orders

  • The application for substituted service is refused.