HCCC v Abou Hatoum

Case [2004] NSWCA 30


CITATION: HCCC v Abou Hatoum & Anor [2004] NSWCA 30 revised - 1/03/2004
HEARING DATE(S): 06/02/04
JUDGMENT DATE:
26 February 2004
JUDGMENT 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 Wales
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40560 of 2003
COUNSEL: Claimant: J Basten QC & M Lynch
1st Opponent: Byrne SC & E Pike
SOLICITORS: 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

                          SPIGELMAN CJ
                          MEAGHER JA
                          HANDLEY JA

                          Thursday, 26 February 2004
HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION v GEORGE ABOU HATOUM & MEDICAL TRIBUNAL OF NEW SOUTH WALES

      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

Details
AGLC
HCCC v Abou Hatoum [2004] NSWCA 30
Case
[2004] NSWCA 30
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Care Complaints Commission (the Commission) sought judicial review by way of certiorari of a finding made by the Medical Tribunal of New South Wales. The dispute concerned whether a medical practitioner, identified as the First Opponent, had discharged the onus of demonstrating that he had become a fit and proper person to practise medicine. The matter was heard by Spigelman CJ, Meagher and Handley JJA.

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.