Health Care Complaints Commission v GJR [2024] NSWCATOD 71

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Health Care Complaints Commission v GJR [2024] NSWCATOD 71 Hearing dates: 14 November 2023 Date of orders: 5 June 2024 Decision date: 05 June 2024 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: T Simon, Principal Member Decision: (1) Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), publication of the name of the respondent is prohibited, except to any regulatory bodies who govern the registration of the respondent as a pharmacist or other health practitioner. (2) The proceedings are terminated. (3) The respondent is to provide to the applicant and the Tribunal, any submissions and documents she intends to rely on in relation to the costs application on or before 4pm on 7 June 2024. (4) The applicant is to provide to the respondent and the Tribunal, any submissions and documents they intend to rely on in response to the costs application by 4pm 14 June 2024. (5) Pursuant to s 50 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, parties are to include in their written submissions whether a hearing in relation to the costs application can be dispensed with. Catchwords: HEALTH - termination of proceedings - registered pharmacist – professional misconduct Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW) Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) Cases Cited: Coleman v Health Care Complaints Commission [2020] NSWCA 337 Grygiel v Health Care Complaints Commission (Termination Application) (2020] NSWCATOD 53 Health Care Complaints Commission v Do 2014] NSWCA 307 Health Care Complaints Commission v Torrinello [2015] NSWCATOD 90 McKinnon v Secretary, Dept of Treasury [2005] FCAFC 142 Prakash v Health Care Complaints Commission [2006] NSWCA 153 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Health Care Complaints Commission (Applicant) GJR (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A Petrie (Applicant) S J Maybury (Respondent)

Solicitors: Health Care Complaints Commission (Applicant) Hall & Willcox (Respondent) File Number(s): 2023/00164203 Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), publication of the name of the respondent is prohibited except to any regulatory bodies who governs the registration of the respondent as a pharmacist or other health practitioner. Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the publication or broadcast of the patients' names contained in the schedule to the complaint is prohibited. Note: A reference to the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person.

Reasons for decision 1. The respondent was first registered as a pharmacist in New South Wales in 1996. On 23 May 2023, the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) referred eight complaints about the respondent to the Tribunal. The HCCC seeks findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct against the respondent and seeks orders under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) (National Law). 2. The complaints regarding the respondent can be summarised as follows: 1. The respondent inappropriately dispensed Valium to a patient on 25 July 2020. The respondent also inappropriately dispensed Prodeine to that patient and made a false record about the dispensing. 2. The respondent self-dispensed various schedule 3, 4 and 8 drugs, for her own personal use, between July 2018 and July 2020. 3. The respondent inappropriately dispensed take away doses of methadone to patients B, C, E and F during the period from 27 June 2020 to 4 July 2020. The respondent also failed to maintain proper knowledge of the NSW Opioid Treatment Program Community Pharmacy Dosing Point Protocol and so acted contrary to the Code of Conduct for Pharmacists (March 2014). 4. On 13 and 19 June 2020 the pharmacy, at which the respondent was proprietor, inappropriately dispensed methadone to patient D and on that basis the respondent failed to ensure all pharmacists at the relevant pharmacy complied with their obligations. 5. Largely by reason of the complaints set out above, the respondent failed to keep proper drug registers during the period about July 2018 to January 2021. 6. On 9 October 2020, the respondent directed an employee to only take cash payment for methadone dispensing to avoid paying tax. 7. As a result of the six complaints which have been summarised above, the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct. 8. The practitioner has a mental impairment, disability, condition or disorder that detrimentally affects or is likely to detrimentally affect the practitioners capacity to practice the profession of pharmacy. 1. On 22 August 2023, the respondent lodged an application seeking an order that the inquiry be terminated. 2. For the reasons that follow, I have formed the view that it is not in the public interest for an inquiry into this matter to proceed and have decides to terminate proceeding.

Non-Publication Order 1. The respondent is seeking a non-publication order of her name. 2. Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act) the Tribunal may prohibit the disclosure of the name of any person (whether or not a party to proceedings). 3. The basis of the respondent's application for non-publication, is that she submits that the evidentiary disclosures about the respondents family, financial and emotional problems, is unnecessary. The HCCC does not oppose the application for non-publication. 4. To determine this application, it is necessary to consider certain evidentiary issues, including the respondent's mental health, suicide attempts and family law issues. Having considered those matters, which are further detailed below, I find that an order should be made to protect the anonymity of respondent. However, for reasons which I have provided below, that anonymity should not extend to any of the regulatory bodies who govern the registration of the respondent as a pharmacist or health practitioner. I have made the order on that condition. To protect the respondent's anonymity, I have also refrained from identifying the location of various places in this decision.

Relevant Law 1. Clause 12 of Schedule 5D of the National Law provides, that: (1) A Committee or the Tribunal may decide not to conduct an inquiry, or at any time to terminate an inquiry or appeal, if— (a) any of the following circumstances apply— (i) a complainant fails to comply with a requirement made of the complainant by the Committee or the Tribunal; (ii) the person about whom the complaint is made ceases to be a registered health practitioner or student; (iii) the complaint before the Committee or the Tribunal is withdrawn; and (b) in the opinion of the Committee or the Tribunal it is not in the public interest for the inquiry or appeal to continue. … 1. The respondent has not been registered as a pharmacist since 6 October 2022. The threshold requirement in clause 12(1)(a)(ii) Schedule 5D of the National Law is satisfied and the Tribunal may decide not to conduct an inquiry in this matter, or terminate the inquiry, if in the opinion of the Tribunal it is not in the public interest for the inquiry to continue. 2. The parties referred the Tribunal to a series of cases regarding "public interest" as referred to in cl 12(1)(b) of sch 5D of the National Law. 3. The HCCC referred to McKinnon v Secretary, Dept of Treasury [2005] FCAFC 142 an appeal to the Federal Court from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Tamberlin J at [11] - [13] said: The indeterminate nature of the concept of "the public interest" means that the relevant aspects or facets of the public interest must be sought by reference to the instrument that prescribes the public interest as a criterion for making a determination. In this respect, the well-known observations of Deane J in Sean Investments Pty Ltd v McKellar (1981) 38 ALR 363 at 375 are apposite. In that case, his Honour was considering the different process of determining the relevant considerations to take into account in the exercise of a broad statutory discretion, however the approach is relevant in the present case. His Honour said: "In a case such as the present, where relevant considerations are not specified, it is largely for the decision-maker, in the light of matters placed before him by the parties, to determine which matters he regards as relevant and the comparative importance to be accorded to matters which he so regards." The public interest is not one homogenous undivided concept. It will often be multi-faceted and the decision-maker will have to consider and evaluate the relative weight of these facets before reaching a final conclusion as to where the public interest resides. This ultimate evaluation of the public interest will involve a determination of what are the relevant facets of the public interests that are competing and the comparative importance that ought to be given to them so that "the public interest" can be ascertained and served. In some circumstances, one or more considerations will be of such overriding significance that they will prevail over all others. In other circumstances, the competing considerations will be more finely balanced so that the outcome is not so clearly predictable. For example, in some contexts, interests such as public health, national security, anti-terrorism, defence or international obligations may be of overriding significance when compared with other considerations. In the context of freedom of information, the notion of the public interest was helpfully considered by the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of Victoria in Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1991] 1 VR 63 at [75], where Kaye, Fullagar and Ormiston JJ said: "The public interest is a term embracing matters, among others, of standards of human conduct and of the functioning of government and government instrumentalities tacitly accepted and acknowledged to be for the good order of society and for the wellbeing of its members. The interest is therefore the interests of the public as distinct from the interest of an individual or individuals: Sinclair v Mining Warden at Maryborough (1975) 132 CLR 473 at 480, per Barwick CJ. There are ... several and different features and facets of interest which form the public interest." 1. Section 3 of the National Law relevantly provides: (1) The object of this Law is to establish a national registration and accreditation scheme for-- (a) the regulation of health practitioners; and (2) The objectives of the national registration and accreditation scheme are-- (a) to provide for the protection of the public by ensuring that only health practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practise in a competent and ethical manner are registered; and … (e) to facilitate access to services provided by health practitioners in accordance with the public interest; and 1. Section 3A of the National Law relevantly states: (1) The main guiding principle of the national registration and accreditation scheme is that the protection of the health and safety of the public must be the paramount consideration. (2) The other guiding principles of the national registration and accreditation scheme are as follows-- (a) the scheme is to operate in a transparent, accountable, efficient, effective and fair way; … (c) restrictions on the practice of a health profession are to be imposed under the scheme only if it is necessary to ensure health services are provided safely and are of an appropriate quality. 1. In Health Care Complaints Commission v Do [2014] NSWCA 307, Meagher JA, with Basten JA and Emmett JA agreeing, at [34] – [39 said: The National Law establishes a registration and accreditation scheme. That scheme, by Div 3 of Pt 8, includes provisions for the making of complaints about registered health practitioners and the determination of those complaints, including in relation to serious complaints, by the Tribunal. The objectives of that scheme, as described in s 3(2), include to "provide for the protection of the public by ensuring that only health practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practise in a competent and ethical manner are registered" and to "facilitate access to services provided by health practitioners in accordance with the public interest". The provisions in Pt 8 concerning the making and dealing with of complaints are provisions substituted in the National Law by the Health Practitioner Regulation (Adoption of National Law) Act 2009 (NSW). Section 3A of the Law provides that in the exercise of those functions "the protection of the health and safety of the public must be the paramount consideration". Section 4, which applies to the National Law as in force in New South Wales, also requires that an entity having functions under it "is to exercise its functions having regard to the objectives and guiding principles" set out in s 3. … The National Law establishes a registration and accreditation scheme. That scheme, by Div 3 of Pt 8, includes provisions for the making of complaints about registered health practitioners and the determination of those complaints, including in relation to serious complaints, by the Tribunal. The objectives of that scheme, as described in s 3(2), include to "provide for the protection of the public by ensuring that only health practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practise in a competent and ethical manner are registered" and to "facilitate access to services provided by health practitioners in accordance with the public interest". The provisions in Pt 8 concerning the making and dealing with of complaints are provisions substituted in the National Law by the Health Practitioner Regulation (Adoption of National Law) Act 2009 (NSW). Section 3A of the Law provides that in the exercise of those functions "the protection of the health and safety of the public must be the paramount consideration". Section 4, which applies to the National Law as in force in New South Wales, also requires that an entity having functions under it "is to exercise its functions having regard to the objectives and guiding principles" set out in s 3." 1. The HCCC also referred to the decision in Coleman v Health Care Complaints Commission [2020] NSWCA 337 in relation to delays in determining complaints. That appeal related to consideration of whether a stay should be granted in relation to a complaint pending the finalisation of criminal proceedings. Macfarlane JA, with Meagher JA and Simpson AJA agreeing, considered the public interest in delay of the proceedings at [39] as follows: Before this Court, the HCCC contended that the public interest would nevertheless be prejudiced by the grant of a stay because it would result in delay in disposition of the complaints. Section 145 of the National Law is relevant in this regard in requiring all complaints "to be dealt with expeditiously. Likewise, the High Court observed in Zhao at [39] that "[njo litigation should be delayed except for good cause". It however held at [39] that there was no basis for concluding that the civil forfeiture proceedings under consideration in that case should proceed "at all costs" and observed that "[ilt could hardly be said, from any point of view, that they are more important than criminal proceedings and should be given priority". The same is true of the disciplinary proceedings in the present case. With the practitioner suspended, delay is a relevant but not critical factor. Especially is this so where the complaints the subject of the disciplinary proceedings date back many years, mainly to 2012-14 but in one instance to 2003, without any explanation having been given to this Court for the delay that has occurred." 1. In Prakash v Health Care Complaints Commission [2006] NSWCA 153 at [91] Basten JA said the following in relation to public interest: The purpose of any order made upon a finding that a complaint has been proved, is said to be protective of the interests of the public at large, but more particularly patients or potential patients of the practitioner concerned. However, the public interests include, indirectly, the standing of the medical profession and the maintenance of public confidence in the high standards of medical practitioners. There is also an element of deterrence or, to put it more positively, encouragement to other practitioners to recognise the importance of complying with professional standards and the risks of failing to do so. 1. In Grygiel v Health Care Complaints Commission (Termination Application) (2020] NSWCATOD 53 the Tribunal at [212] said in weighing up whether to terminate an inquiry: However, the matters in my answers to the identified topics, indicate the complaints raise serious issues for determination. These complaints involve 17 patients in respect of whom all experts agree were cisplatin eligible, issues relating to informed consent and recording of that consent in a multi-disciplinary setting or in the context of a fly in fly out service. Matters relating to the practitioner's circumstances must be balanced against the need for resolution of complaints made by patients and appropriate findings on the evidence of patients, in particular, those required for cross-examination. Resolution of the proceedings may result in important findings in respect of specific and general deterrence, and upholding of the standards of the profession. While aspects of matters supporting termination and those for rejecting the application are, in many respects, finely balanced, overall I conclude it is in the public interest for the proceedings to continue to finality and for the application under cl 12 of Schedule 5D to be dismissed. 1. In the decision in Health Care Complaints Commission v Torrinello [2015] NSWCATOD 90 in which the Tribunal determined an application under clause 12 of Schedule 5D of the National Law and in circumstances in which the practitioner was no longer registered the Tribunal said, at [28]: Accordingly, my principal focus must be on the upholding of the high standards of the profession, the confidence of the public in the profession and the deterrent effect of an order cancelling a practitioner's registration for conduct of the nature pleaded in the complaint. 1. In that matter, even though no admissions were made by the practitioner, the Tribunal accepted that the application by the HCCC should be terminated.

Consideration 1. Having considered those authorities and the evidence before me, I find, on balance, that it is not in the public interest for the proceedings to continue. 2. The complaints arise from the respondent being a registered pharmacist who owned her own pharmacy. The respondent's life circumstances at and around the time the conduct occurred are set out in her statutory declaration provided to the Tribunal sworn 25 September 2023. The respondent was not called by the applicant for cross examination in relation to that statutory declaration. 3. In her statutory declaration, the respondent states she separated from her ex-husband in 2012 and that she had been subject to verbal and emotional abuse by him and threats of physical violence. She states that following the separation she experienced financial stress in her professional and personal life. The respondent had an ongoing custody dispute with her ex-husband which lasted till about 2022 and included ongoing abuse from her ex-husband. Things had begun to improve professionally by late 2018, however in January 2019 the respondent was involved in a car accident which caused ongoing neck and back pain. 4. In October 2019, one of the respondent's pharmacy's had a roof collapse and there was major damage, with insurance claims and repairs needing to be dealt with. At the same time her son was who had been complaining of health issues, was diagnosed as Osgood Schlatter syndrome. The respondent's son was also missing a lot of school and the respondent became concerned that he was being sexually groomed online. Her son started having suicidal thoughts. The respondent, who claims that she was not being assisted with her son by her ex-husband at that point, subsequently took her son to hospital for mental health reasons, and states that her ex-husband then took him to his house and refused to return him to her care. Her son then elected to live with his father instead of the respondent. 5. The respondent also detailed how she struggled with her business in the COVID-19 pandemic and that through early 2020 she had some falls and other physical issues. In June 2020 she found a psychologist, who she states had been better than previous psychologists she had seen. Notes from that psychologist are attached to the statutory declaration. 6. A Pharmaceutical Registration Unit inspection occurred in July 2020 which discovered misconduct and the respondent was informed of those issues and that triggered an investigation. The respondent's ex-husband found out about the investigations and instituted Family Court proceedings seeking greater access to their daughter as well as their son. At around that time the respondent's registration was suspended. 7. In December 2020, the respondent attempted to commit suicide and was found by friend and admitted to hospital. After leaving the hospital her family contacted police who stopped her, and she was sectioned back at the hospital for 10 days. She subsequently admitted herself for treatment in a private facility. 8. The respondent also states in her statutory declaration: 65 Since my suicide attempt in December 2020, I have worked hard to develop coping mechanisms to deal with my stress, anxiety, panic attacks and ongoing difficult circumstances. I have found that compartmentalisation helps, but I have been living with guilt and shame, and in fear and dread and am often required to revisit my traumatic experiences as part of the ongoing investigations and proceedings. 66 Finding out that the HCCC was to commence proceedings against me was devastating to hear, especially when I had already made the difficult decision to give up my profession as a pharmacist. The prospect of possibly having to give evidence at the Tribunal and maybe being cross-examined brings me feelings of dread and anxiety. I do not want to have to revisit all of my traumatic experiences again. 67 I am also anxious and concerned about what effect the proceedings might have on my personal circumstances, especially if my name is published. My ex-husband has already used the fact that there is an investigation against me to threaten me and to attempt to take away my children. I have no doubt that if the prosecution continues and a decision is published, that he will use that against me to allege that I am not fit to keep custody of my daughter. 1. The HCCC submits that the respondent has had a lengthy career history as a pharmacist of some 25 years. They acknowledge the respondent statements that indicate that she has no intention to apply for registration as a pharmacist in the future and that she accepts the complaint against her and says that she is remorseful. However, they submit that the respondent gives no acknowledgement of the impact of her actions on the patients and the community. 2. The HCCC also submit that they have significant concerns in relation to the extent of the respondent's insight and reflection in relation to the subject matter of the complaint. The HCCC also submits that a non-publication of the respondent's name is sufficient in the circumstances to mitigate any potential harm to the respondent of the inquiry continuing. 3. In a letter to the HCCC dated 14 August 2023 the respondent's treating GP states: [the respondent] continues to see me regularly, in addition to a regular psychologist amongst her medical specialists. Again, I would like to reiterate that the hearing process is having a significant impact on her mental health, which is now having a flow-on effect to her physical health on a daily basis. As outlined previously, she has already voluntarily taken steps to remove herself from the pharmacy industry indefinitely. 1. In a letter dated 16 August 2023, the respondent's treating clinical health psychologist relevantly states the following: 1) Treatment history. I have seen [the respondent] for an assessment (11/7/2023) and for three treatment sessions since then… 2) Presentation. [the respondent] has been very emotional with tears and negative affect. She expressed depressive thoughts with suicidal ideation but low risk at present. There has been attempts in the past and a major depressive episode. There is a great sense of F43.8 Prolonged Grief Disorder, and loss. Recently (today), she has presented with an improved mood and reduced chronic pain symptoms. This is probably, in part, due to her having seen a Psychiatrist about her legal situation; something she was dreading. She has put on weight and she reports feeling "not herself". We have assessed her for eating behaviour, specifically binging disorder, and she would not currently be diagnosed with this. 3) Impact of NCAT. There is no doubt that [the respondent] believed that, while she would not go back to being a Pharmacist, she could make a new life and career. So the letter from NCAT saying they were going ahead with proceedings against her was a new trauma. This comes after [the respondent] has effectively endured a three year sentence and losses of income and career for her behaviour. She has developed trauma related symptoms and now feels the loss of her newly formed future. Enduring the proceedings will likely take her to a level of distress that carries significant risk given her history. 4) Other matters. In my opinion, [the respondent] poses no risk to the public in relation to her past behaviour under investigation for when she was a pharmacist. She will not be a pharmacist and has engaged in new learnings around ethics, along with all appropriate treatments. However, the proceedings pose significant risk to her, and would not serve the interests of the public, if they were to proceed. 1. In a report from a Consultant Psychiatrist dated 16 August 2023, he relevantly states in relation to the effect of these proceedings: The likely effect of the proceedings will be to aggravate [the respondent's] symptoms of depression and anxiety still further however I remain of the view that she is mentally competent to undergo the upcoming proceedings and she claims to be reasonably stoic with regards to the potential outcome. [the respondent's] abjures any further intent to harm herself out of consideration of her daughter... 1. The Consultant Psychiatrist also states that: The fact that [the applicant) has been able to discontinue psychotropic medications 18 months ago and has only sporadic contact with her mental health professionals suggests that under normal circumstances her mental state is reasonably settled and euthymic (despite the ever present distress and agitation occasioned by her son's estrangement). Consequently, in my opinion, prognosis is likely to be positive after the conclusion of the NCAT Tribunal. 1. I find based on the respondent's evidence that the respondent has had significant ongoing mental health issues which have included an attempted suicide. While I accept that the Consultant Psychiatrist report does not conclude that the prognosis is positive after the conclusion of these proceedings, the balance of the evidence does indicate that considerable mental stress will be placed on the respondent if the proceedings continue. I find that in circumstances of this case, where the respondent is facing other pressures in her life including ongoing issues relating family law and parenting of her children and where there has been a previous suicide attempt that there is some risk of harm to the respondent if these proceedings continue. 2. The respondent's conduct which is the subject of these complaints is serious. The conduct occurred over a prolonged period, including placing the health and safety of her patients at risk and abusing her position as a pharmacist to personally administer prescribed medications, including Schedule 8 drugs of addiction. 3. However, the respondent has accepted each of the allegations against her. At the hearing the respondent's Counsel informed the Tribunal that he had instructions that the respondent admits the factual conduct the subject of the complaints and that they amount to Professional Misconduct. Other than the self-dispensing, the conduct all occurred in 2020 around the time of the stresses outlined in her statutory declaration. 4. The HCCC submits that some of applicants previous responses lack insight and instead focus on her personal circumstances. They submit she lacks appreciation of the impact of her actions on the health and safety of the public. However, the extracts they referred to were from 2020, since that time the evidence demonstrates that there have been some changes for the respondent, and she has sought professional help. The respondent entered a mental health facility and has sought the help of a psychologist. The respondent has also surrendered her registration and states in her statutory declaration sworn on 25 September 2023 that: 74 In order to prioritise my mental health, and acknowledge the seriousness of my conduct and failings as a pharmacist between 2018 and 2020, on 26 September 2022 I wrote a letter to the Pharmacy Board of Australia notifying of my intention to surrender my registration pursuant to section 137 of the National Law. My solicitors sent that letter to the Pharmacy Council on 27 September 2022. 75 In December 2022 | did not seek renewal of my registration on the advice of Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). On 15 December 2022 my registration details were removed from the register of practitioners and I have not been registered as a pharmacist since that time… 76 I have no intention to apply for registration as a pharmacist in the future. I accept and am remorseful for my failings, and do not think that re-engaging with pharmacy will be good for my mental health. 77 I undertake not to seek registration as a pharmacist at any time in the future and understand that if I do, the HCCC will be at liberty to reagitate its proceedings against me. 1. Contrary to the HCCC's assertions, para 76 indicates at least some insight on the respondent's part in that she realises that re-engaging with pharmacy will not be good for her mental health. 2. The HCCC points to the fact that despite the respondent's significant mental health issues and ongoing stressors, she has been able to provide a detailed statement in support of her application addressing the complaint and her personal circumstances. The respondent has the capacity to provide her legal representatives with ongoing instructions and would also be open for her not to attend any future inquiry and instruct her legal representatives to do so on her behalf. Alternatively, she could attend the inquiry with legal representation and decline to give evidence. 3. However, if the respondent had to refrain from giving evidence or attending the proceedings for her own mental health wellbeing, that could have procedural consequences for her. 4. I agree with the HCCC's submission that despite stating that she no longer seeks to be a pharmacist, there is nothing preventing the respondent from changing her mind and applying for registration in the future. 5. The HCCC submits that a reagitating of the proceedings in the future is likely to result in both parties incurring significant additional costs, given the passage of time and difficulties in addressing the evidence which comes with prolonging the proceedings. Further, the HCCC submits it would not be efficient or expeditious to proceed in that way. 6. In the circumstances of this case, I do not accept that if the respondent did reapply for registration that it would prolong proceedings or add significant cost or inconvenience. The applicant has admitted the factual basis to the complaints and most of the evidence in this matter would be documentary. In relation to the efficiency and expediency of the matter, at this stage, the position of the respondent is that she does not seek to reapply for her registration as a pharmacist and that she will apply in the future is only speculative. 7. The HCCC also submitted that the respondent may later withdraw her admissions made in these proceedings. While that is always a possibility, withdrawing admissions in legal proceedings requires a high threshold and that speculation does not weigh heavily in favour of not terminating the proceedings. 8. The HCCC referred to the respondent's evidence that she is engaging with mental health treatment and taking steps to address her past issues and vulnerabilities. They submit that such progress arguably could encourage her to seek to re-register as a pharmacist in the future. The HCCC also submits that the respondent has also been under significant financial pressure, and it is not apparent from the evidence how she will be able to financially support herself in the future without returning to work in her profession of pharmacy. 9. However, at the time of hearing, the respondent had already not been engaged as a pharmacist for a period of 3 years. It has already been sometime that the respondent has not been a pharmacist and has been continuing her life by not being a pharmacist. 10. The HCCC also raised that given the non-publication order that there is a risk that the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency or any of the other regulatory bodies pertaining to the respondent's registration as a pharmacist may not know about these complaints or proceedings. While, that submission was only speculative, in order to lessen such risk, I have limited the non-publication order to allow disclosure of the respondent's identity and these proceedings to any regulatory bodies who govern the registration of the respondent as a pharmacist or other health practitioner. It is also open to the HCCC to notify the relevant governing bodies of this decision including the Pharmacy Board. 11. Accordingly, I have determined in the exercise of my discretion to terminate the proceedings. 12. At the hearing, the respondent also foreshadowed that in the event that they were successful they seek the costs of the proceedings. In my orders I have made provision for the exchange of material in relation to the application for costs. Provision has also been made for the parties to include in their written submissions their views on whether the Tribunal can dispense with a hearing in relation to the costs application. The Tribunal will decide whether to dispense with the hearing in relation to the costs application in due course.

Orders 1. The Tribunal makes the following orders. 1. Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), publication of the name of the respondent is prohibited, except to any regulatory bodies who govern the registration of the respondent as a pharmacist or other health practitioner. 2. The proceedings are terminated. 3. The respondent is to provide to the applicant and the Tribunal, any submissions and documents she intends to rely on in relation to the costs application on or before 4pm on 7 June 2024. 4. The applicant is to provide to the respondent and the Tribunal, any submissions and documents they intend to rely on in response to the costs application by 4pm 14 June 2024. 5. Pursuant to s 50 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, parties are to include in their written submissions whether a hearing in relation to the costs application can be dispensed with.

********** I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar

Amendments 05 June 2024 - Order 4 - the word "stay" changed to "costs" DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 05 June 2024