Braun v Health Ombudsman

In the case of Braun v Health Ombudsman, the applicant, Dr Braun, sought judicial review of decisions made by the respondent, the Health Ombudsman of Queensland, regarding the investigation of complaints about Dr Braun’s performance and conduct as a health practitioner. The crux of the dispute was whether the respondent lawfully extended the deadlines for completing three investigations into Dr Braun, and whether the respondent failed to consider relevant factors in making these decisions. The case was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether the power to extend the due day for completing an investigation could be exercised retrospectively, whether the respondent reasonably considered that it was not possible to complete the investigations by the original deadlines, whether the respondent took irrelevant considerations into account, and what the consequences were if the due day was not validly extended. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain whether Dr Braun had standing to institute the proceedings, given the relief sought and the impact of the respondent’s actions on his rights and interests.

The court found that the power to extend the due day under s 85(2) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) could not be exercised retrospectively. The court also determined that the respondent did not reasonably consider that it was not possible to complete each investigation by the original deadlines. Furthermore, the court held that the respondent took irrelevant considerations into account by considering the status of the other investigations. The court interpreted s 90 of the Act, which requires the health ombudsman to decide on further action after completing an investigation, to mean that the duty under s 90 is only engaged after the investigation is complete to the satisfaction of the health ombudsman, regardless of whether the original deadline has passed. Finally, the court found that Dr Braun had standing to bring the proceedings, as the respondent’s decisions had affected his rights and interests.

The court declared that the due day for completing the investigation into the complaint made by the Metro North Hospital and Health Service was 1 March 2020, and that the purported extensions of the due day were invalid. The court also declared that the respondent was obliged to make a decision under s 90 of the Act as soon as possible concerning that investigation. The parties were directed to provide written submissions regarding any other relief and costs by a specified date, with liberty to apply granted.