Health Care Complaints Commission v CNU [2016] NSWCATOD 50

Health Care Complaints Commission v CNU [2016] NSWCATOD 50

Having considered the evidentiary inconsistencies in the complainant's statements, the lack of corroborating evidence, credible character evidence for the respondent, and the context and time constraints of the consultation, the Tribunal was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the practitioner engaged in the conduct alleged. None of the particulars were established and both complaints failed.

Parties
Applicant: Health Care Complaints Commission; Respondent: CNU
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Disciplinary Proceeding / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Complaints dismissed; non-publication order and costs ordered against applicant
Legal Topics
Allegation of Sexual Assault, Disciplinary Proceedings, Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct, Professional Misconduct
Medical Law Professional Discipline Allegation of Sexual Assault Disciplinary Proceedings Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct Professional Misconduct

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Health Care Complaints Commission

Applicant

CNU

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Disciplinary Proceeding / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct during a consultation with the complainant on 29 December 2013 by inappropriately touching the complainant and making inappropriate remarks.

Ratio Decidendi

Having considered the evidentiary inconsistencies in the complainant's statements, the lack of corroborating evidence, credible character evidence for the respondent, and the context and time constraints of the consultation, the Tribunal was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the practitioner engaged in the conduct alleged. None of the particulars were established and both complaints failed.

Court Disposition

Complaints dismissed; non-publication order and costs ordered against applicant

Orders

  • Broadcast or publication of the name or other identifying information of the respondent or the patient who raised the complaints is prohibited.
  • The Applicant must pay the Respondent's costs of or incidental to these proceedings as agreed and in default of agreement each party has leave to relist the proceedings for further orders for determination of the amount of costs payable.