Health Care Complaints Commission v Hill

The Health Care Complaints Commission (the Commission) sought leave to appeal from a decision of the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The underlying dispute concerned the Director of Proceedings' decision to commence disciplinary proceedings in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) against a medical practitioner, Dr. Hill, based on allegations of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct. Dr. Hill had sought to challenge the Director's decision, arguing that the allegations of professional misconduct were legally unreasonable.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Director of Proceedings' decision to commence disciplinary proceedings in NCAT was amenable to judicial review by the Supreme Court. Specifically, the court had to determine whether such a prosecutorial decision, made under the relevant health practitioner legislation, was justiciable and could be struck out as legally unreasonable, or if it was largely immune from review, subject only to the control of NCAT itself. The court also considered the availability of remedies, such as certiorari, for a decision that did not directly affect the practitioner's legal rights or registration.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the legislature did not intend for the Supreme Court to determine which applications should be considered by NCAT, a specialist tribunal. The Director's decision to refer a complaint for disciplinary proceedings was considered a prosecutorial decision, which, while subject to NCAT's oversight, was largely immune from judicial review. The court held that the decision to commence proceedings had no immediate effect on Dr. Hill's legal rights or registration, and therefore, relief by way of certiorari was not available. The court concluded that the Director's decision was non-justiciable and that the Supreme Court lacked the power to make findings of fact or affect registration at this stage.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted the Commission leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and set aside the orders of the Common Law Division. The amended summons was dismissed, and Dr. Hill was ordered to pay the Commission's costs in the Supreme Court.