Health Care Complaints Commission v FTR [2023] NSWCATOD 46

Health Care Complaints Commission v FTR [2023] NSWCATOD 46

The Practitioner, having been wholly successful in resisting the substantive complaints, is entitled to 90% of his legal costs, with exclusions for certain costs related to adjournments and insurance. Given the uncontested medical evidence of the serious health risk to the Practitioner's mother and the withdrawal (not dismissal after contested hearing) of the serious complaints, an exceptional case is established justifying a non-publication order of the Practitioner's name.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Occupational Disciplinary Proceedings / Post Hearing Decision on Costs and Non Publication Order
Outcome
Costs orders made; non-publication order granted for Practitioner's name and file number. Substantive professional misconduct complaint dismissed by withdrawal; caution for unsatisfactory professional conduct maintained.
Legal Topics
['medical Practitioners Disciplinary Proceedings' 'professional Misconduct' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'costs Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'open Justice']
['health Law' 'professional Discipline'] ['medical Practitioners Disciplinary Proceedings' 'professional Misconduct' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'costs Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'open Justice']

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

Occupational Disciplinary Proceedings / Post Hearing Decision on Costs and Non Publication Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Practitioner is entitled to a costs order following withdrawal of serious complaints by the Applicant' "Whether a non-publication order of the Practitioner's name should be granted given claims of risk to a third party (mother's health)" 'What legal costs are recoverable under the circumstances']

Ratio Decidendi

The Practitioner, having been wholly successful in resisting the substantive complaints, is entitled to 90% of his legal costs, with exclusions for certain costs related to adjournments and insurance. Given the uncontested medical evidence of the serious health risk to the Practitioner's mother and the withdrawal (not dismissal after contested hearing) of the serious complaints, an exceptional case is established justifying a non-publication order of the Practitioner's name.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made; non-publication order granted for Practitioner's name and file number. Substantive professional misconduct complaint dismissed by withdrawal; caution for unsatisfactory professional conduct maintained.

Orders

  • ["The Practitioner is to pay 10% of the Applicant's costs on a party/party basis as agreed or, failing agreement, as assessed." "The Applicant is to pay 90% of the Practitioner's costs of obtaining legal services in respect to these proceedings, excluding legal costs covered by insurance and costs related to...