Medical Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Health Care Complaints Commission v Dr Sudath [2013] NSWMT 2 Hearing dates: 18/02/2013-21/02/2013 Decision date: 22 February 2013 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Elkaim SC DCJ
Dr K Ilbery
Dr V de Carvalho
Ms C Berglund (PhD)Decision: Direct the deregistration of Dr Sudath
Catchwords: Doctor convicted of serious offences. Unsuccessful challenge to the facts of the offences. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) (No 86a)
Medical Practice Act 1992Cases Cited: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
General Medical Council v Spackman [1943] AC 627
Sudath v R [2008] NSWCCA 207
Sudath v HCCC [2012] NSWCA 171Category: Principal judgment Parties: Health Care Complaints Commission (Applicant)
Dr Aron Kondasinghe Sudath (Respondent)Representation: P M Strickland SC and E Brus (Applicant)
P R Boulten SC and M G Ainsworth (Respondent)
Health Care Complaints Commission (Applicant)
TressCox Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 400204/2008 Publication restriction: Yes
Judgment
Introduction
The proceedings before the Tribunal are brought by the Health Care Complaints Commission (the "HCCC"). The HCCC seeks resolution of two complaints. For convenience the Further Amended Notice of Complaint is annexed to this decision.
The respondent has consented to the Tribunal dealing with both the establishment of the complaints and, if proved, the imposition of protective orders.
The Tribunal is acutely aware of the seriousness of the allegations put by the HCCC and the long reaching effect of the orders open to it. Accordingly it has approached the evidence on the basis of the standard of proof prescribed in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336.
Some background
The respondent, Dr Aron Kondasinghe Sudath, was born in 1967 in Sri Lanka. He came to Australia in 1991 and commenced study at the University of Adelaide with the benefit of a scholarship. He graduated in
1996 with the double degrees of MBBS and BSc. The respondent was first registered as a medical practitioner in South Australia in November 1996. He then practised in various parts of Australia. He was also registered in the United Kingdom.
The respondent's name in university documents was recorded as Aruna Sudath Kondasinghe or, another occasion, as Aron Sudath Kondasinghe. His registered name in the United Kingdom is Aron Sudath Kondasinghe. His recently obtained masters degree is in the name of Dr Aron Kondasinghe (Exhibit 5).
The respondent first married in December 1996. The marriage did not last very long. The parties separated after about a year. The respondent said he had never received any official divorce papers but he feels certain that he is divorced.
In March 2003 the respondent and a Ms A, also a person of Sri Lankan origin, were married in a Sri Lankan ceremony. They met and lived in Australia. This was not a marriage performed under Australian law but for all intents and purposes Ms A became the respondent's wife. The relationship bore a son, B, in January 2004.
The complaints
The complaints arise from two incidents in New South Wales in…
Continue reading Health Care Complaints Commission v Dr Sudath
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Health Care Complaints Commission v Dr Sudath [2013] NSWMT 2
- Case
- [2013] NSWMT 2
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the Commission's decision to deregister Dr Sudath was valid under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW). It examined the extent to which the Commission could rely on criminal convictions to justify deregistration and whether there was any procedural error in the Commission's decision-making process. The court found that the Commission had the authority to deregister a medical practitioner based on serious criminal convictions, particularly those involving controlled substances. It also concluded that the evidence presented during Dr Sudath's criminal trial was reliable and accurately reflected the facts of the case. Therefore, the Commission's decision to deregister Dr Sudath was upheld.
In light of the court's findings, the New South Wales Supreme Court ordered the deregistration of Dr Sudath. The court determined that the evidence supporting the criminal convictions was sufficient to justify the Commission's decision. Dr Sudath's challenge to the factual basis of the convictions was dismissed, and the court upheld the Commission's authority to act on the criminal convictions in this matter. The final orders of the court mandated the deregistration of Dr Sudath, reflecting the severity of his criminal activities and the need to protect public safety.
Orders
Orders of the court
Direct the deregistration of Dr Sudath
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.