Azam v Medical Board of Australia

CITATION:

Azam v Medical Board of Australia [2013] QCAT 588

PARTIES:	Dr Muhammad Azam
v
Medical Board of Australia

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR191-13

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Alexander Horneman-Wren SC, Deputy President

DELIVERED ON:

26 July 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT:

1. The application for an interim order is refused.

THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTS THAT

1. The matter is listed for a directions hearing at 10:30 am on 1 August 2013

CATCHWORDS:

HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS – LICENCES AND REGISTRATION – where the Board took immediate action under s 156 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) and imposed conditions on the registrant’s registration – where the registrant sought a stay of the Board’s decision – whether a stay of the Board’s decision should be granted

Health Practitioners (Disciplinary Proceedings) Act 1999 (Qld), s 398C(1)(b), s 398B, s 398ZC
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), s 199
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 58

Chaudhry v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency [2013] QCAT, 9 May 2013, cited

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 25 October 2012 the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency notified Dr Azam’s solicitors that the Medical Board of Australia had decided to take immediate action under s 156 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (National Law). The immediate action taken was to impose conditions on Dr Azam’s registration.
On 19 July 2013 Dr Azam’s solicitors filed an application to review decision of the Board and an application for interim order.
The application for interim order seeks an order to remove the conditions on Dr Azam’s registration. An interim order is an order that only has effect for the duration of the proceeding or a shorter period.[1] Although it is not stated in those terms, what is sought is a stay of the Board’s decision.
[1] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 58(6).
The decision to impose conditions on a health practitioner’s registration is an appellable decision.[2] The decision is thus a reviewable decision under s 398B of the Health Practitioners (Disciplinary Proceedings) Act 1999 (Disciplinary Proceedings Act). The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decision.[3]
[2] National Law s 199(1)(i).
[3] Disciplinary Proceedings Act s 398C(1)(b).
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant a stay of a decision to take immediate action.[4] A decision to take immediate action is made under Part 8, Division 7 of the National Law. Section 398ZC of the Disciplinary Proceedings Act prohibits the granting of a stay.
[4] Chaudhry v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency [2013] QCAT, 9 May 2013.
The stay is refused.
Section 398ZC requires the Tribunal to finalise the review as quickly as possible. To facilitate this Dr Azam’s application to review a decision is listed for a directions hearing at 10:30 am on 1 August 2013.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Azam v Medical Board of Australia, the applicant, Dr Muhammad Azam, sought an interim order to stay the conditions imposed on his registration by the Medical Board of Australia. The decision of the Board was reviewable under the Health Practitioners (Disciplinary Proceedings) Act 1999, and the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was the appropriate forum for the review. The applicant argued that an interim order, effectively a stay of the Board’s decision, should be granted to remove the conditions on his registration pending the outcome of the review. The Board, on the other hand, argued that the QCAT did not have the jurisdiction to grant a stay of its decision to take immediate action, as such a stay is prohibited by s 398ZC of the Disciplinary Proceedings Act.

The primary legal issue before the QCAT was whether the tribunal had the jurisdiction to grant an interim order to stay the Board’s decision. The QCAT considered that while the decision to impose conditions on the applicant's registration was reviewable, the tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to grant a stay of the decision to take immediate action. The tribunal relied on the decision in Chaudhry v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, which held that s 398ZC of the Disciplinary Proceedings Act prohibited the granting of a stay of a decision to take immediate action. Given this statutory prohibition, the QCAT concluded that it did not have the authority to grant the stay sought by the applicant.

Consequently, the QCAT refused the application for an interim order, meaning the conditions imposed on Dr Azam's registration by the Board remained in effect. The tribunal directed that the matter be listed for a directions hearing on 1 August 2013 to expedite the review process in line with the requirements of s 398ZC. The QCAT emphasised the importance of finalising the review as quickly as possible, in accordance with the legislative mandate.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established