Chaudhry v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency

[2013] QCAT 305

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. The stay is refused.

5. 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.