Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service (EOD) - [2003] NSWADTAP 3

Appeal Panel - Internal

CITATION: Dutt -v- Central Coast Area Health Service; Central Coast Area Health Service -v- Dutt (EOD) [2003] NSWADTAP 3

PARTIES: APPELLANT
1. Central Coast Area Health Service
2. Dr Arunjit Dutt
RESPONDENT
1. Dr Arunjit Dutt
2. Central Coast Area Health Servcie

FILE NUMBER: 029039 and 029040

HEARING DATES: 06/02/2003

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 02/06/2003

DATE OF DECISION:
02/28/2003

DECISION UNDER APPEAL:
Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWADT 133

BEFORE: Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Goode P - Judicial Member; Mooney L - Member

CATCHWORDS: no question of law identified - standard of proof

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: 991085 and 001017

DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 08/06/2002

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
G v H (1994) 181 CLR 387
State of Victoria v Macedonian Teachers Association of Victoria [1999] FCA 1287
State of Victoria & Ors v McKenna and McKenna v State of Victoria & Ors (2000) EOC 93-080
Re Pochi and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1977) 2 ALD 33.
Collins v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 4 ALD 198
Hafza v Director-General of Social Security (1985) 60 ALR 675
Brandusoiu -v- Commissioner of Police [1999] NSWADTAP 8
Martin v Crimes Compensation Tribunal State of Victoria 91 A Crim R 301
Hall and Ors v Sheiban Pty Ltd and Ors (1989) EOC 92,250
Phillips v Aboriginal Legal Service (1996) EOC 92-704

REPRESENTATION: APPELLANT
1. S Coleman, barrister
2. E Brus, barrister
RESPONDENT
1. E Brus, barrister
2. S Coleman, barrister

ORDERS: 1. Dr Dutt's appeal is dismissed; 2. The Central Coast Area Health Service's appeal is dismissed.

1 These proceedings relate to two appeals, the first by the Central Coast Area Health Service (CCAHS) filed on 30 August 2002, and the second by Dr Dutt filed on 9 September 2002. The appeals are from a decision of the Tribunal made under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (ADA) in which Dr Dutt was the complainant and the CCAHS was the respondent.

2 Of the numerous allegations constituting Dr Dutt’s complaints, the Tribunal found only one of those allegations to be substantiated. The allegation was that the medical director, Dr Sparke, said to Dr Dutt, "You bloody Indian, you bloody black. I will sack you and I know how to do it." The Tribunal made the following orders:

3 The grounds for the appeal by the CCAHS were as follows:

Briginshaw

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service (EOD) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] NSWADTAP 3
Decision Date: 02/28/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Dr Dutt and the Central Coast Area Health Service. Dr Dutt had lodged an appeal against a decision that had been made by a disciplinary panel, which was part of the Health Service. The panel had found Dr Dutt guilty of professional misconduct, leading to the Health Service's decision to suspend him for a period of six months. The Health Service also appealed the decision, seeking to overturn the disciplinary panel's decision and impose a harsher penalty.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the disciplinary panel had applied the correct standard of proof in determining Dr Dutt's guilt. Dr Dutt argued that the panel had not applied the correct standard, which was beyond reasonable doubt, and had instead applied a lower standard of proof. The Health Service, on the other hand, argued that the panel had applied the correct standard of proof and that the penalty imposed was appropriate. The court was required to determine whether the disciplinary panel had applied the correct standard of proof and whether the penalty imposed was appropriate.

In its judgment, the court found that the disciplinary panel had indeed applied the correct standard of proof, which was beyond reasonable doubt. The court also found that the penalty imposed by the panel was appropriate and that there was no question of law identified in the case. The court dismissed both Dr Dutt's and the Health Service's appeals, upholding the original decision of the disciplinary panel.

The court's final orders were that Dr Dutt's appeal be dismissed and that the Health Service's appeal be dismissed. The original decision of the disciplinary panel, which found Dr Dutt guilty of professional misconduct and imposed a six-month suspension, was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Dr Dutt's appeal is dismissed; 2. The Central Coast Area Health Service's appeal is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Dutt -v- Central Coast Area Health Service; Central Coast Area Health Service -v- Dutt (EOD) [2003] NSWADTAP 3
PARTIES:	APPELLANT 1. Central Coast Area Health Service 2. Dr Arunjit Dutt RESPONDENT 1. Dr Arunjit Dutt 2. Central Coast Area Health Servcie
FILE NUMBER:	029039 and 029040
HEARING DATES:	06/02/2003
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	02/06/2003
DATE OF DECISION:	02/28/2003
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWADT 133
BEFORE:	Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Goode P - Judicial Member; Mooney L - Member
CATCHWORDS:	no question of law identified - standard of proof
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	991085 and 001017
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	08/06/2002
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Evidence Act 1995
CASES CITED:	Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 G v H (1994) 181 CLR 387 State of Victoria v Macedonian Teachers Association of Victoria [1999] FCA 1287 State of Victoria & Ors v McKenna and McKenna v State of Victoria & Ors (2000) EOC 93-080 Re Pochi and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1977) 2 ALD 33. Collins v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 4 ALD 198 Hafza v Director-General of Social Security (1985) 60 ALR 675 Brandusoiu -v- Commissioner of Police [1999] NSWADTAP 8 Martin v Crimes Compensation Tribunal State of Victoria 91 A Crim R 301 Hall and Ors v Sheiban Pty Ltd and Ors (1989) EOC 92,250 Phillips v Aboriginal Legal Service (1996) EOC 92-704
REPRESENTATION:	APPELLANT 1. S Coleman, barrister 2. E Brus, barrister RESPONDENT 1. E Brus, barrister 2. S Coleman, barrister
ORDERS:	1. Dr Dutt's appeal is dismissed; 2. The Central Coast Area Health Service's appeal is dismissed.