DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Fletcher v Queensland Nursing Council [2009] QDC 129
PARTIES:
Glennys Laurel Fletcher
(Appellant)
v
Queensland Nursing Council
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S:
3074 of 2008
DIVISION:
Appellate
PROCEEDING:
Appeal against Nursing Tribunal finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct and penalty
ORIGINATING COURT:
Nursing Tribunal
DELIVERED ON:
25 May 2009
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
27 April 2009
JUDGE:
Robin QC DCJ
ORDER:
Appeal allowed, charge against the appellant dismissed, respondent to pay for costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis, and her costs in the Nursing Tribunal, fixed at $10,000.
CATCHWORDS:
Nursing Act1992 s 104A, s 116, s 137 – whether appellant registered nurse faced a single charge of abusing her position of influence and trust, in respect of a former patient whose domiciliary carer she was (by refusing to relinquish a gift of the bulk of his estate under a will made 5 months after his hospitalisation) or multiple charges by reference to particulars – where Tribunal found some but not all particulars proved, but made no finding of abuse – no clear delineation or guidelines available as to “boundary issues” to do with clarifying that the therapeutic relationship had ended when the appellant on a voluntary basis continued to visit the testator in hospital and other institutions, and performed services for him.
COUNSEL:
J Allen with K Forrester for the Appellant
D Tait SC for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:
Roberts and Kane Solicitors for the Appellant
Rodgers Barnes and Green Lawyers for the Respondent
This is Mrs Fletcher’s appeal under s 137(2) of the Nursing Act 1992 against an “order” of the Nursing Tribunal (as referred to in subsection (1)(c)) of 6 October 2008 following a hearing of some days’ duration of a charge or charges of unsatisfactory professional conduct as a registered nurse contrary to s 104A(1) of the Act. The orders, made pursuant to “charges” 1, 2, 4 and 5 in an amended notice of charge being found proved, are:
“ 1. The Respondent’s registration is forthwith cancelled.
2. The Respondent is prohibited from re-applying for registration, or applying for enrolment or an authorisation to practise nursing (“the application”) until:
2.1A period of two (2) years from the date of these Orders has elapsed;
2.2The respondent has completed, at her expense, a course (or courses) in ethics, professional responsibility and accountability, and nursing and the law, such course or courses to be nominated by the respondent and approved in writing by Council;
2.3The respondent has provided to Council reports from the course convenors satisfying Council that she has successfully completed the courses referred to in paragraph 2.2;
2.4After complying with paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3, the respondent has sat (or re-sat if necessary) an oral examination at a time to be nominated by Council before two (2) senior nurses to be nominated by Council, in order to demonstrate a sufficient level of knowledge of those issues referred to in paragraph 2.2;
2.5Council has received a written report from the two (2)…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Fletcher v Queensland Nursing Council 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] QDC 129
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue before the court was whether the appellant faced a single charge of abusing her position of influence and trust in respect of the former patient, or multiple charges by reference to particulars. The court considered the appropriate scope of the charge against the appellant, and whether the Tribunal had the requisite jurisdiction to find the appellant guilty of the charge. The court also considered the issue of whether there were clear guidelines available to assist the Tribunal in delineating the boundary issues regarding the continuation of the therapeutic relationship.
The court held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to find the appellant guilty of the charge. However, the court found that the Tribunal had misapplied the provisions of the Nursing Act 1992, and had failed to consider the appropriate scope of the charge against the appellant. The court held that the appellant faced a single charge of abusing her position of influence and trust, and that the Tribunal had failed to establish that charge. The court found that there were no clear guidelines available to assist the Tribunal in delineating the boundary issues regarding the continuation of the therapeutic relationship. The appeal was therefore allowed, the charge against the appellant was dismissed, and the respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal and the costs of the appellant in the Nursing Tribunal, fixed at $10,000.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed, charge against the appellant dismissed, respondent to pay for costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis, and her costs in the Nursing Tribunal, fixed at $10,000.
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.