CITATION: HCCC v Abou Hatoum & Anor [2004] NSWCA 30 revised - 1/03/2004 HEARING DATE(S): 06/02/04 JUDGMENT DATE:
26 February 2004JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Meagher JA at 36; Handley JA at 46 DECISION: Application dismissed with costs. CATCHWORDS: Summons for judicial review by way of certiorari challenging a finding of the Medical Tribunal of New South Wales - whether First Opponent discharged his onus to show he has become a fit and proper person to practise medicine - whether jurisdictional error occurred below - whether non-jurisdictional error on the face of the record occurred below. - Held: dismissing the appeal - no jurisdictional error occurred below - no non-jurisdictional error on the face of the record occurred below - appeal dismissed with costs. LEGISLATION CITED: Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)CASES CITED: Zaidi v Health Care Complaints Commission (1998) 44 NSWLR 82
Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630
ex parte Lenehan (1949) 77 CLR 403
Landauer v Asser [1905] 2 KB 184
Champsey Bhara & Co v Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Co Ltd [1923] AC 480, 487
British Westinghouse Co v Underground Electric Railways Co [1912] AC 673
Baldwin and Francis Ltd v Patents Appeal Tribunal [1959] AC 663
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW) (1982) 149 CLR 337, 350-2
Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163, 182
PARTIES :
Health Care Complaints Commission
v
George Abou Hatoum and Medical Tribunal of New South WalesFILE NUMBER(S): CA 40560 of 2003 COUNSEL: Claimant: J Basten QC & M Lynch
1st Opponent: Byrne SC & E PikeSOLICITORS: Claimant: D M Swain - Health Care Complaints Commission
1st Opponent: Whitehead Cooper Williams
2nd Opponent: I V Knight - Crown Solicitor
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Medical Tribunal of New South Wales LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Patten J
CA 40560 of 2003
Thursday, 26 February 2004SPIGELMAN CJ
MEAGHER JA
HANDLEY JA
On 28 May 2003 the Second Opponent made an Order under s92, Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW). reinstating the name of Dr G. Abou-Hartoum to the New South Wales register of medical practitioners, subject to certain conditions (detailed in Meagher JA's judgment at paragraph 2).
The Claimant seeks to invoke the procedure for judicial review, pursuant to s69, Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), including by way of certiorari under s 69(3), which now requires the Claimant to prove jurisdictional error or non-jurisdictional error on the face of the record.
DECISION
Held, dismissing the appeal with costs:
1. Submissions by the Claimant that there was insufficient evidence before the tribunal below to make the finding it made, fails, as there is no point of law involved in such submission;
2. Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630 distinguished from this case as the tribunal below did not make the error of…
Continue reading HCCC v Abou Hatoum
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- HCCC v Abou Hatoum [2004] NSWCA 30
- Case
- [2004] NSWCA 30
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the appellate court were whether the Medical Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error, or alternatively, non-jurisdictional error on the face of the record, in its determination. The Commission contended that there was insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to support its finding.
The court dismissed the appeal, finding that no jurisdictional error had occurred. It reasoned that a submission alleging insufficient evidence to support a finding does not raise a point of law, and therefore cannot constitute jurisdictional error. Furthermore, the court distinguished the present case from *Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield* (1997) 41 NSWLR 630, holding that the Tribunal had not made the specific error of law identified in that precedent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Held, dismissing the appeal with costs:
1. Submissions by the Claimant that there was insufficient evidence before the tribunal below to make the finding it made, fails, as there is no point of law involved in such submission;
2. Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630 distinguished from this case as the tribunal below did not make the error of law referred to in Litchfield.
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.