Chaudhry v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency

CITATION:

Chaudhry v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency [2013] QCAT 305

PARTIES:	Dr Muhammad Tahir Bashir Chaudhry
v
Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR116-13

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Alexander Horneman-Wren SC, Deputy President

DELIVERED ON:

9 May 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT:

1. The application for a stay is refused.

THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTS THAT:

1. The matter is listed for a directions hearing at 9:30 am on 17 May 2013.

CATCHWORDS:

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

Health Practitioner (Professional Standards) Act 1999, s 398B, s 398ZC
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), s 156

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 15 April 2013, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency notified Dr Muhammad Chaudhry of its decision to take immediate action in relation to him pursuant to s 156 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (‘National Law’). The immediate action taken was the imposition of conditions on Dr Chaudhry’s registration.[1]
[1] See definition of immediate action in s 155(c) of the National Law.
The decision to impose conditions is an appellable decision.[2] The decision is thus a reviewable decision under s 398B of the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decision.[3]
[2] Section 199 of the National Law.
[3] Section 398C(1)(b) Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999.
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant a stay of the decision to take immediate action. Such a decision is taken under Part 8, Division 7 of the National Law. Section 398ZC of the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999 prohibits the granting of a stay.
The stay is refused.
Section 398ZC requires the Tribunal to finalise the review of a decision to take immediate action as quickly as possible. Dr Chaudry’s application for the review of that decision will be listed for a directions hearing on 17 May 2013.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dr Muhammad Tahir Bashir Chaudhry sought a stay of the decision made by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency to impose conditions on his registration. The matter was heard and determined by Judge Alexander Horneman-Wren SC, Deputy President of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The applicant argued that the immediate action taken by the Agency was unjustified and sought a stay pending the review of the decision.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant a stay of the decision to take immediate action, and if not, whether the application for a review of the decision should proceed. The court examined the statutory provisions, particularly sections 398ZC and 398B of the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999 and section 156 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland). The court found that the decision to take immediate action was governed by Part 8, Division 7 of the National Law, and section 398ZC of the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999 precluded the granting of a stay. The court further held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the decision under section 398B of the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999.

The Tribunal determined that it did not have jurisdiction to grant a stay of the decision to take immediate action, as prohibited by section 398ZC of the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999. The court emphasised the importance of finalising the review of such decisions as quickly as possible. Consequently, the application for a stay was refused. The court directed that the matter be listed for a directions hearing on 17 May 2013 to proceed with the review of the decision to impose conditions on Dr Chaudhry's registration.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established