Dental Board of Australia v PRL

Case •

[2025] QCAT 408

•

29 October 2025

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Dental Board of Australia v PRL [2025] QCAT 408

PARTIES:
DENTAL BOARD OF AUSTRALIA

(applicant)

v
PRL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR028-24

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

29 October 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Dick SC
Assisted by:
Dr P Bowden
Prof J Abbott
Mr P Davies

ORDERS:

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1.     The non-publication order made on 28 March 2024 continues to operate.

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT:

1. Pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (‘National Law’), the respondent’s conduct in grounds one to three, when viewed globally, constitutes professional misconduct.

2. Pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the National Law, the respondent is reprimanded.

3. Pursuant to s 196(2)(d) of the National Law, the respondent’s registration is suspended for a period of one (1) month to commence on one month from the date of this decision.

4. Pursuant to s 196(2)(b) of the National Law, upon the respondent’s return to practice following the suspension, conditions are imposed on the respondent’s registration in the form of Annexure A to the Tribunal’s decision.

5. Pursuant to s 196(3) of the National Law, the review period for the conditions imposed is twelve (12) months.

6. Part 7, Division 11, Subdivision 2 of the National Law applies to the conditions imposed.

7.     There be no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – DENTISTS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – where the applicant Board referred respondent practitioner to the Tribunal because he attended a shift intoxicated, failed to make adequate and accurate records and failed to maintain professional boundaries – where the parties are agreed as to facts, characterisation and sanction – where the parties dispute the particular wording of one of the proposed sanctions namely the conditions – whether the Tribunal is satisfied the conditions proposed by the respondent are adequate in the circumstances

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld)

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. The first issue to be resolved is that leave was sought from the Tribunal to amend the particulars of ground one in amended referral.  The Tribunal grants that leave.

Background to the referral

  1. On 9 February 2024, the Dental Board of Australia (‘Board’) referred disciplinary proceedings against the respondent to the Tribunal.  On 28 November 2024, the Tribunal gave leave to the Board to amend the grounds of the referral.  Since that time, a statement of agreed facts has been filed, which sets out the background of the matter, namely that:

    (a)On 26 November 2008, the respondent was registered as a dental practitioner and is presently a registered dental practitioner. 

    (b)On 10 December 2021, the respondent voluntarily ceased practice due to health concerns. 

    (c)On 4 May 2022, the respondent volunteered to provide a formal undertaking to formalise and continue cessation of practice, which was accepted by the Board, forming part of the immediate action measures taken by the Board on 11 May 2022.

    (d)On 28 September 2022, the immediate action measures were lifted and the respondent resumed practice with conditions placed on his registration, including requiring him to:

    (i)      have a Board approved place and hours of practice;

    (ii)      have a breath analysis 30 minutes before and after work;

    (iii)     submit to urinary drug screening at ground 2 frequency; and

    (iv)     attend a treating general practitioner and addiction medicine specialist.

    (e)On 8 May 2024, the final remaining conditions were lifted and the respondent is currently practising with no conditions imposed.

  2. It should also be noted that on 13 December 2021, the respondent self-notified to Ahpra about a health issue which he considered impaired his ability to practise dentistry. 

  3. The respondent has cooperated with the investigation and proceedings before this Tribunal.

The conduct the subject of the referral

  1. Ground one of the referral relates to an incident on 10 December 2020, when the respondent attended a shift at the practice which he was then working while intoxicated and unfit for work. 

  2. He has insight into that health impairment because, on 22 December 2021, he was admitted as an inpatient to a mental health facility.[1]  On 12 January 2022, the respondent reported to his treating psychiatrist that he had consumed alcohol while at work prior to Christmas.  On 20 January 2022, he advised Ahpra he intended to remain non-practising until he was deemed fit to return to work.  Between 25 February and 1 March 2022, he was admitted to Logan Hospital for polypharmacy overdose under the influence of alcohol intoxication.  Between 1 to 4 and 15 to 19 April 2022, he was again admitted as inpatient to that mental health facility (relapse prevention program). 

    [1]Respondent’s submissions, filed in the Tribunal 20 June 2025, 16 [114(c)].

  3. From September 2022 to December 2023, the respondent was subject to conditions to undergo alcohol testing which he had generally complied with, and the occasions of non-compliance did not warrant further action from the Board.  He has undergone treatment for his substance abuse including day programs at a mental health facility, treatment relapse prevention courses at a different mental health facility and is still receiving regular psychiatric and psychological treatment.  On 12 July 2023, having had regard to the respondent’s overall compliance and progress since the imposition of conditions, the Board considered it was appropriate to accept the respondent’s application to remove two of the conditions. 

  4. In December 2023, the Board then removed a number of other conditions on the respondent’s registration having had regard to the respondent’s treating practitioners’ unequivocally confirming his compliance with treatment plans and raising no concerns regarding his fitness to practice.  By 8 May 2024, all conditions were removed.

  5. Ground two relates to an allegation that the respondent failed to maintain adequate and accurate health records to the standard reasonably expected of a dentist of an equivalent level of training or experience.

  6. Ground three relates to an allegation that he failed to maintain and manage adequate professional boundaries in that he, in or about March or April 2021, undertook consultations with CM, with whom he had an ongoing intimate relationship. 

The parties’ agreed position

  1. The parties have agreed on the characterisation of the behaviour and have agreed on the factual matters so much so that there are no longer any disputed facts in the proceedings.

  2. The parties agree that the respondent’s conduct in:

    (a)ground one is properly characterised as professional misconduct;

    (b)ground two is properly characterised as unprofessional conduct; and

    (c)ground three is properly characterised as unprofessional conduct.

  3. Further, the parties agree that, when viewed globally, the respondent’s conduct in grounds one to three constitutes professional misconduct.

  4. It is still a matter for the independent Tribunal to decide these issues but there is an important public policy involved in promoting predictability of outcome in civil penalty proceedings.  Although the Tribunal still needs to be persuaded the agreed characterisation and sanction is correct, it is generally recognised that Tribunal ought not to depart from proposed sanction agreed between the parties, unless it falls outside the permissible range of sanction for the conduct.

  5. The parties propose that:

    (a)the respondent be reprimanded;

    (b)the respondent be suspended from practice for a period of one month; and

    (c)conditions be imposed on the respondent’s registration. 

  6. There is some dispute about the terms of those conditions, but the parties have identified the comparable cases support the first two parts of that sanction and the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the first two orders are within the permissible range of sanction that could be imposed in the circumstances.

  7. Returning to the dispute about the form of conditions to be imposed, the respondent argues that the conditions proposed by the Board are too onerous and proposes conditions as set out in Annexure C to the Further Outline of Submissions on the Respondent filed 24 October 2025.  The respondent has already been subject to stringent conditions between September 2022 and 2024 and since May 2024, he has had no conditions.  The Board says the conditions proposed by it are relatively standard but this is not a jurisdiction where one size fits all and these matters have to be judged within the circumstances of the case.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the conditions proposed by the respondent are adequate in the circumstances.

Non-publication order

  1. The next issue to be decided is whether there should be a non-publication order. 

  2. A non-publication order was made on 28 March 2024 pursuant to s 66 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’).  The non-publication order appears to have been made in principle because of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) (‘DFVP Act’) because a protection order under that Act was made on 29 April 2021. 

  3. Section 159(1)(b) of the DFVP Act provides that a person must not publish information that identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of a person who is a party or a witness to a proceeding under that Act.

  4. The Board argues that, because ground four is no longer being pressed, section 159 of the DFVP Act is not captured. However, in ground three, the former partner of the respondent is mentioned and while it is not likely that a member of the public would piece together the order and these proceedings, the respondent has been a patient at a number of facilities, and it is at least feasible that someone who has been treating him or involved in treating him would be able to make that identification. Because CM is described as a patient of the respondent, was the respondent’s partner at the material time, is a party to the protection order and a witness in the proceedings leading to the protection order, section 159 is captured. It is also true that while ground four is no longer being pressed, anyone searching the file would be able to find the details that were initially alleged ground four and a non-publication order is further warranted on that basis.

  5. Lastly, if section 226 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (‘National Law’) applied to proceedings in the Tribunal, then that section would have provided protection to the respondent because he had an impairment and would have been seen as necessary to protect his privacy.  The respondent concedes that section specifically refers to the Board and the inclusion of information of conditions on the national register, but the sentiment behind that section is apparent and it would seem incongruous that he would not have that protection simply because the matter has been litigated that way.

  6. The Tribunal notes that the default position for proceedings of this nature is that they are transparent and public but s 66(2)(a) and (d) QCAT Act allow for non-publication in cases where it is necessary to avoid interfering with the proper administration of justice or to avoid the publication of information whose publication would be contrary to the public interest. The Board says that, and it is apparent, there is no medical evidence being presented here to say that it would in any way put pressure on the respondent so as to interfere with his rehabilitation. Nevertheless, the combination of the DFVP Act and the National Law leads the Tribunal to the view that the non-publication order that was made should continue.

Findings and orders

  1. Accordingly, the Tribunal makes the following findings and orders.

  2. The Tribunal orders that:

  3. The non-publication order made on 28 March 2024 continues to operate.

  4. It is the decision of the Tribunal that:

  5. Pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the National Law, the respondent’s conduct in grounds one to three, when viewed globally, constitutes professional misconduct.

  6. Pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the National Law, the respondent is reprimanded.

  7. Pursuant to s 196(2)(d) of the National Law, the respondent’s registration is suspended for a period of one (1) month to commence on one month from the date of this decision.

  8. Pursuant to s 196(2)(b) of the National Law, upon the respondent’s return to practice following the suspension, conditions are imposed on the respondent’s registration in the form of Annexure A to the Tribunal’s decision.

  9. Pursuant to s 196(3) of the National Law, the review period for the conditions imposed is twelve (12) months.

  10. Part 7, Division 11, Subdivision 2 of the National Law applies to the conditions imposed.

  11. There be no order as to costs.


Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

1