Da Horta v Podiatry Board of Australia (No 2)

In the case of Da Horta v Podiatry Board of Australia (No 2), the respondent, Mario da Horta, challenged the decision of the Podiatry Board of Australia to caution him regarding his professional conduct. The Board had issued a caution to Mr da Horta based on concerns about his treatment of a patient, including inadequate initial assessment, communication of risks, and record-keeping. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Board's decision to caution Mr da Horta was manifestly unreasonable.

The court examined whether the Board's decision could be considered manifestly unreasonable by assessing if a reasonable decision-maker could have arrived at the same conclusion. The court highlighted that the Board was not required to provide written reasons for its decision, as it was not obligated to set out findings or refer to the evidence or material on which those findings were based. Instead, the court focused on whether the Board had a reasonable belief that Mr da Horta's professional conduct was or may be unsatisfactory, which is the jurisdictional fact that triggers the power to take relevant action under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.

The court concluded that the Board's decision to caution Mr da Horta was not manifestly unreasonable, as there were objective circumstances sufficient to justify the Board's reasonable belief. The Board's decision was based on the evidence of Mr da Horta's conduct, which included deficiencies in his assessment of the patient, communication of risks, and record-keeping. The court found that these deficiencies were sufficient to support the Board's decision to caution Mr da Horta as a deterrent for similar conduct in the future. Therefore, the court dismissed Mr da Horta's challenge to the Board's decision.