Health Care Complaints Commission v Black (No 3) [2015] NSWCATOD 72

Health Care Complaints Commission v Black (No 3) [2015] NSWCATOD 72

The tribunal found the respondent is not a suitable person to hold registration as an osteopath due to established serious professional misconduct over decades, including sexual misconduct, repeated failures to comply with conditions, lack of insight, no evidence of remediation, and disregard for regulatory authority. These findings justify the declaration that his registration would have been cancelled (if not lapsed), a 10-year disqualification, and a prohibition order in respect of all health services to protect public health and ensure confidence in professional standards.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Disciplinary/occupational / Stage Two (determination of Suitability and Orders)
Outcome
Complaint Six established; Respondent found not suitable to hold registration; Orders made as outlined below.
Legal Topics
['professional Misconduct' 'suitability for Registration' 'protective Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'cost Orders']
['health Law' 'professional Discipline' 'administrative Law'] ['professional Misconduct' 'suitability for Registration' 'protective Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'cost Orders']

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

Disciplinary/occupational / Stage Two (determination of Suitability and Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent is a suitable person to hold registration as an osteopath under s144 of the National Law; Whether professional misconduct, unsatisfactory professional conduct and breaches of registration conditions are established; Whether protective and prohibition orders should be made; Whether a costs order should be made; Scope of non-publication and public access orders']

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found the respondent is not a suitable person to hold registration as an osteopath due to established serious professional misconduct over decades, including sexual misconduct, repeated failures to comply with conditions, lack of insight, no evidence of remediation, and disregard for regulatory authority. These findings justify the declaration that his registration would have been cancelled (if not lapsed), a 10-year disqualification, and a prohibition order in respect of all health services to protect public health and ensure confidence in professional standards.

Court Disposition

Complaint Six established; Respondent found not suitable to hold registration; Orders made as outlined below.

Orders

  • ["Declaration that if still registered as an osteopath, respondent's registration would have been cancelled under s149C(4)(a) of the National Law." 'Disqualification from being registered as an osteopath for 10 years from the date of decision under s149C(4)(b) of the National Law.' 'Permanent prohibition from...