Fletcher v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency

This matter came before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, with Livesey P and Lovell J presiding. The appeal concerned Mr Fletcher's challenge to immediate action conditions imposed on his registration as a psychologist by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) Board. The dispute arose from Mr Fletcher's conduct in relation to a client whose children had been removed by the Department for Child Protection, with AHPRA believing Mr Fletcher's actions posed a serious risk to public health or safety.

The Court was required to determine whether to grant Mr Fletcher permission to appeal the decision of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT), which had affirmed the Board's imposition of immediate action conditions. The Court also considered an application for an extension of time to lodge the appeal. The central legal issue was whether there was sufficient merit or utility in Mr Fletcher's proposed appeal to warrant further consideration by the Court.

The Court reasoned that Mr Fletcher's appeal lacked both utility and merit. It noted that SACAT, in reviewing the Board's decision, had considered an expert report critical of Mr Fletcher's conduct and assessments that did not indicate any psychological condition on his part. SACAT had found a basis for the reasonable belief that Mr Fletcher posed a serious risk, adopting established legal principles for such reviews. The Court also observed that the issue of costs, which Mr Fletcher had also sought to challenge, had not yet been finally adjudicated, leaving open the possibility for him to contest the quantum of costs claimed.

Consequently, the Court refused Mr Fletcher's applications for permission to appeal and for an extension of time. The Court indicated that, subject to hearing from the parties, Mr Fletcher would be ordered to pay the Board's costs.