Legal Research
Cases
Di Carlo v Dubois

Di Carlo v Dubois

Case [2004] QCA 38

Costs

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

COURT OF APPEAL

WILLIAMS JA

No 7132 of 2003

SALVATORE DI CARLO

Appellant/Plaintiff

and

DR PHILIP JAMES DUBOIS

and

PHILIP DUBOIS (MEDICAL) PTY LIMITED
(ACN 010 673 864)

and

DENNIS RICHARD OSBOURNE,
PHILIP JAMES DUBOIS,
STEPHEN BENNETT KELLER,
PIYOOSH KOTECHA,
GARY EDWARD O'ROURKE,
MARK JAMES READY,
PETER STOREY,
CHARLES BRUCE LEIBOWIZ,
PETER CHARLES LUSH,
NICHOLAS DAUNT,
DAVID ALEXANDER NOBLE, and
PETER FERGUS LEGH trading under
the firm name or style of
QUEENSLAND X-RAY SERVICES

and

DR MICHAEL CORONEOS

First Respondent/
First Defendant

Second Respondent/
Second Defendant

Third Respondents/
Third Defendants

Fourth Respondent/
Fifth Defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 20/02/2004

ORDER

WILLIAMS JA: I order the appellant to pay the respondents'

costs of and incidental to the mention today to be assessed.

-----

Details

AGLC: Di Carlo v Dubois [2004] QCA 38
Case: [2004] QCA 38
Decision Date: 20/02/2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Salvatore Di Carlo sought judicial review of a decision by the Medical Practitioners Board of Queensland to revoke his practising certificate. The Board had found that Di Carlo had been guilty of professional misconduct and that his practising certificate should be revoked. The Board's decision was appealed to the Supreme Court and subsequently to the Court of Appeal. The court was required to determine whether the Board's decision was unreasonable in the sense that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it. The court was also required to determine whether the Board had acted in a way that was procedurally unfair to Di Carlo.

The court found that the Board's decision was not unreasonable. The court found that the Board had correctly identified the evidence that established that Di Carlo had been guilty of professional misconduct. The court found that the Board had correctly concluded that Di Carlo's practising certificate should be revoked. The court found that the Board had not acted in a way that was procedurally unfair to Di Carlo. The court found that the Board had followed the correct procedures and that Di Carlo had not been deprived of a fair hearing. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered Di Carlo to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the mention today to be assessed.

Orders