ARUNKALAIVANAN and MEDICAL BOARD OF AUSTRALIA

Arunkalaivanan sought leave to appeal against the decision of the Medical Board of Australia to suspend his registration as a medical practitioner and for a stay of that decision. The Board had suspended the registration on the basis that Arunkalaivanan had engaged in disgraceful conduct contrary to s 141(1)(l) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. The Board had found that Arunkalaivanan had been dishonest in his application for registration and in the evidence he provided during the registration process. The Board also found that he had engaged in dishonest conduct in his subsequent application for a practising certificate. The Board made the immediate action decision on 18 September 2019. Arunkalaivanan applied for leave to appeal and for a stay of the immediate action decision on 26 September 2019.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant was entitled to leave to appeal and whether the applicant was entitled to a stay of the immediate action decision. The court noted that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for leave to appeal under s 126(2) of the National Law. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision involved a question of law of general public importance or that the decision was plainly wrong or unjust. The court also noted that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision was a nullity or that the decision-maker had acted without jurisdiction. The court found that the applicant was not entitled to leave to appeal.

The court also considered whether the applicant was entitled to a stay of the immediate action decision. The court noted that the applicant had not demonstrated that he would suffer significant harm if the stay was not granted. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the stay was in the interests of justice. The court found that the applicant was not entitled to a stay of the immediate action decision.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and for a stay of the immediate action decision. The court made no orders as to costs.