Health Care Complaints Commission v Elias (No. 2) [2019] NSWCATOD 51

Health Care Complaints Commission v Elias (No. 2) [2019] NSWCATOD 51

Because the parties consented and the appropriate form of orders could be adequately determined from written submissions, the Tribunal determined the matter on the papers. The unopposed amendments to the mentoring and performance assessment conditions were adopted. The audit condition was amended as proposed by the Commission because it should apply to more than Mr Elias's records and extend to his practice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Occupational Division Complaint About a Health Practitioner Pharmacist / Determination on the Papers of the Proper Form of Protective Orders After Findings of Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct and Professional Misconduct
Outcome
Mr Simon Elias was reprimanded and conditions were imposed on his registration for 12 months or such longer period as determined by the Pharmacy Council.
Legal Topics
['protective Orders' 'reprimand' 'conditions on Registration' 'mentoring' 'audit' 'performance Assessment']
['health Practitioner Regulation' 'professional Discipline' 'administrative Law'] ['protective Orders' 'reprimand' 'conditions on Registration' 'mentoring' 'audit' 'performance Assessment']

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 Division Complaint About a Health Practitioner Pharmacist / Determination on the Papers of the Proper Form of Protective Orders After Findings of Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct and Professional Misconduct

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What form of protective orders should be made following findings that Mr Elias's conduct amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct." "Whether the proposed audit condition should require audit of Mr Elias's practice rather than merely his records."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties consented and the appropriate form of orders could be adequately determined from written submissions, the Tribunal determined the matter on the papers. The unopposed amendments to the mentoring and performance assessment conditions were adopted. The audit condition was amended as proposed by the Commission because it should apply to more than Mr Elias's records and extend to his practice.

Court Disposition

Mr Simon Elias was reprimanded and conditions were imposed on his registration for 12 months or such longer period as determined by the Pharmacy Council.

Orders

  • ['Mr Simon Elias is reprimanded.' 'While Mr Elias resides in NSW the appropriate review body for the purpose of Pt 8, Div. 8 of the National Law is the Council. Otherwise the appropriate review body is the Pharmacy Board of Australia.' "Pursuant to s 163(4) of the National Law, conditions are imposed on Mr Elias's...