5 Oct 2018
Leave to appeal was granted limited to two specified questions of law touching compliance with s 351 and whether the High Court reached its own conclusions; other grounds were refused because they were not seriously arguable or did not raise questions of general or public importance, thereby focusing appellate review only on the statutory and appellate‑conclusion issues.
21 May 2015
Leave to appeal out of time was granted. The Tribunal erred in treating the appellant's explanations and her NZNO leadership role as separate aggravating factors (double‑counting) and did not adequately tailor the least restrictive protective conditions or give sufficient weight to rehabilitation and her period out of practice. The Court held the suspension and supervision orders were unduly harsh and substituted reduced orders: suspension reduced from nine to six months, supervision on resumption limited to six months of initial supervised practice (monthly meetings and report) followed by t…
14 Jun 2011
Disclosure that a tribunal member had previously acted as an independent consultant in two complaints against the appellant was inadequate and not sufficiently detailed to allow an informed waiver; a fair‑minded lay observer could reasonably apprehend a real possibility of lack of impartiality given the logical connection between those earlier complaints and the penalty decision, therefore the penalty and costs orders were set aside and the matter remitted to a properly constituted Tribunal; appellant awarded costs for the appeal.
17 Dec 2009
Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal was granted, but special leave to appeal was declined because the applicant failed to raise any question of law or matter of sufficient importance; the complained-of matters were factual disagreements or insubstantial (including alleged bias, evidential complaints, media attendance permitted by statute, penalty and costs within Tribunal discretion), and the High Court correctly applied binding precedent (Austin Nichols).
13 Oct 2009
The High Court set aside the Tribunal majority's finding that a continuous doctor/patient relationship existed from 2004 to 2007; instead the sexual relationship commenced with a former patient and limited medical services were subsequently provided during the sexual relationship in April-May 2007 which technically fall within the charge but whether those acts constitute professional misconduct is undecided; the matter is remitted for further submissions and possible reconsideration given insufficient reasoned basis and evidential gaps.
22 Jul 2009
Leave to appeal was declined because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law or a seriously arguable question of law capable of bona fide argument and of sufficient importance to justify further appeal; the substantive and costs decisions were correctly reasoned; respondent entitled to costs on a 2B basis and disbursements.