Gorman v NSW Medical Board

Dr Gorman appealed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales against a decision of the Medical Tribunal of NSW, which had dismissed his appeal against a suspension order made by the NSW Medical Board. The Medical Tribunal had found that the health and safety of the public would be endangered if Dr Gorman were permitted to return to practice, based on his adherence to a particular philosophy of medicine and his belief in a ubiquitous illness treatable by spinal manipulation.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether Dr Gorman's appeal to the Supreme Court under s 90 of the *Medical Practice Act 1992* (NSW) was competent. This required the court to determine if Dr Gorman was a person about whom a complaint had been referred to the Medical Tribunal, as stipulated by the Act for such appeals. A secondary issue concerned Dr Gorman's summons for relief under s 69 of the Act.

The Court of Appeal held that Dr Gorman's appeal under s 90 was incompetent because he was not a person about whom a complaint had been referred to the Tribunal. The court reasoned that the right of appeal under s 90 was limited to individuals directly involved in a complaint referred to the Tribunal, and Dr Gorman did not fall within this category. Consequently, the court found it unnecessary to consider whether the Medical Tribunal had committed a jurisdictional error or an error of law on the face of the record.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed Dr Gorman's appeal as incompetent, dismissed his summons for s 69 relief, and ordered him to pay the Medical Board's costs.