Health Care Complaints Commission v Gaberman (No 2) [2023] NSWCATOD 178

Health Care Complaints Commission v Gaberman (No 2) [2023] NSWCATOD 178

Mr Gaberman is to pay 50% of the Commission's costs, because although the Commission was successful in establishing unsatisfactory professional conduct, it failed to prove discrete and substantial parts of its complaint, and there was no disentitling conduct by the Commission; minute dissection of issues is discouraged, so an even apportionment is fair.

Parties
Applicant: Health Care Complaints Commission; Respondent: Lance Michael Gaberman
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs Application (occupational Division) / Post Substantive Decision, Determination of Costs
Outcome
Partly in favour of applicant (costs order: 50%)
Legal Topics
Costs, Apportionment of Costs, Disentitling Conduct, Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct, Professional Misconduct
Health Law Professional Regulation Administrative Law Costs Apportionment of Costs Disentitling Conduct 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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Health Care Complaints Commission

Applicant

Lance Michael Gaberman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application (occupational Division) / Post Substantive Decision, Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission engaged in disentitling conduct affecting costs
  2. 2 What proportion of the Commission's costs Mr Gaberman should pay due to partial success/failure

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Gaberman is to pay 50% of the Commission's costs, because although the Commission was successful in establishing unsatisfactory professional conduct, it failed to prove discrete and substantial parts of its complaint, and there was no disentitling conduct by the Commission; minute dissection of issues is discouraged, so an even apportionment is fair.

Court Disposition

Partly in favour of applicant (costs order: 50%)

Orders

  • Mr Gaberman is to pay 50% of the Commission's costs as agreed or assessed.
  • Each party is to pay their own costs in relation to the Commission's costs application.