Legal Research
Cases
Adams v Health Care Complaints Commission

Adams v Health Care Complaints Commission

Case [2025] NSWSC 1212 16 October 2025

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Failure to Give Reasons

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Adams v Health Care Complaints Commission [2025] NSWSC 1212
Hearing dates: 4 July 2025
Date of orders: 16 October 2025
Decision date: 16 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison AsJ
Decision:
(1) The plaintiff’s application for judicial review is dismissed.
(2) The plaintiff’s summons filed 23 November 2023 is dismissed.
(3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs on an ordinary basis.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — judicial review — procedural fairness — Health Care Complaints Commission — decision not to take further steps to progress complaint against dentist — decision reviewed and confirmed by commission — whether judicial review available — failure to take matters into account — public safety — failure to give reasons

Legislation Cited:
Australian Courts Act 1828 (Imp) s 5
Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW) ss 12, 28(8)(b), 92, 99A(2).

Cases Cited:
Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564; [1992] HCA 10
Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75; [1980] HCA 48
BQQ15 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 218
Ceerose Pty Ltd v A-Civil Aust Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCA 215
Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26
Hastwell v Health Care Complaints Commission [2021] NSWCA 22
Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 34
Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (1996) 185 CLR 149; [1996] HCA 44
LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12
Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501; [1996] HCA 46
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZSSJ [2016] HCA 29
Mohareb v Health Care Complaints Commission [2023] NSWSC 1224
Mohareb v Health Care Complaints Commission [2024] NSWCA 70
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia [2003] HCA 2
R v Department of Health; Ex parte Source
“Reg” v Prosser (1848) 11 Beav 306; 50 ER 834
Informatics Ltd [2000] 1 All ER 786
Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak [2013] HCA 43;(2013) 252 CLR 480

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Charlie Armstrong Adams (Plaintiff)
Health Care Complaints Commission (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Self-represented (Plaintiff)
I Chatterjee (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Self-represented (Plaintiff)
Health Care Complaints Commission (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2025/00067189
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

This judgment involves a judicial review of a decision of the Health Care Complaints Commission.
The plaintiff is Charlie Armstrong Adams. He is self-represented. The defendant is the Health Care Complaints Commission (the HCCC) and is represented by I Chatterjee of counsel. The parties relied on an agreed joint court book marked as Exhibit A (Ex A).
By summons filed 23 November 2023, the plaintiff seeks judicial review of a review decision of the HCCC dated 4 October 2024, not to proceed with a complaint made by him against a dentist, Dr Jilin Cai (the dentist), concerning treatment he received from the dentist on 2 November 2023.
Of paramount concern to the plaintiff is the manner in which the dentist dealt with…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adams v Health Care Complaints Commission

Details

AGLC: Adams v Health Care Complaints Commission [2025] NSWSC 1212
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1212
Decision Date: 16 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Adams v Health Care Complaints Commission involved a dispute where the plaintiff sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) not to pursue a complaint against a dentist. The plaintiff, who was a member of the public, had raised concerns about the dentist's professional conduct. The HCCC initially decided not to take further action on the complaint, and following a review, confirmed this decision. The plaintiff sought to challenge this decision on the grounds of procedural fairness, arguing that the HCCC had failed to consider certain matters, including public safety, and had not provided reasons for its decision.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the HCCC's decision was subject to judicial review, and if the HCCC had breached principles of procedural fairness in making its decision. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that the HCCC failed to take relevant matters into account and did not provide reasons for its decision. The court needed to determine if these alleged breaches were significant enough to warrant the decision being quashed.

The court found that the HCCC's decision was indeed subject to judicial review. It examined the nature of the decision-making process and the extent of procedural fairness required. The court concluded that while the HCCC had not taken all matters into account, this did not necessarily render the decision unlawful. Furthermore, the court held that the absence of reasons did not automatically invalidate the decision. The court balanced the need for procedural fairness with the HCCC's discretion in deciding whether to pursue complaints. Ultimately, the court found that the HCCC's decision was not so flawed as to warrant judicial intervention.

The court confirmed the HCCC's decision not to take further action on the complaint against the dentist. It found that the procedural fairness requirements were met, and the absence of reasons did not invalidate the decision. The plaintiff's application for judicial review was dismissed.

Orders