Health Ombudsman v DLP - [2025] QCAT 250

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v DLP [2025] QCAT 250

PARTIES:

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

DLP

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR296-24

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

21 October 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Jones
Assisted by:
Dr J Jauncey-Cooke
Mr S Lewis
Mrs K Thomson

ORDERS:

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT:

1.     Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘HO Act’), the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2.     Pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, the respondent is reprimanded.

3.     Pursuant to s 107(3)(d) of the HO Act, the respondent’s registration is suspended until 30 October 2025.

4.     Pursuant to s 62(2)(a)(ii) of the HO Act, the immediate registration action imposed on 14 March 2024 by the Office of the Health Ombudsman is set aside.

5.     There be no order as to cost.

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1.   The non-publication order made by the Deputy President on 14 April 2025 is to remain on foot in its current form.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – where the respondent was a registered nurse – where the respondent was convicted of domestic violence offences against his wife – whether the Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent has demonstrated genuine insight and remorse – where the Tribunal accepts the conduct was out of character – where the respondent has been engaging in rehabilitation – where the Tribunal finds that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct – where there is no evidence before the Tribunal that suggests the respondent is a risk to the safety and wellbeing of the general public – where the parties have come to an agreed position as to the findings and orders to be made by the Tribunal, but for the suspension period – where the live issue is to determine what orders ought to be made to send an appropriate message of general deterrence – whether the proposed suspension is excessive

Health Ombudsman v Field [2019] QCAT 243

Health Ombudsman v HCG [2020] QCAT 166
Health Ombudsman v ICN [2024] QCAT 246

Health Ombudsman v JTM [2020] QCAT 394

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld)

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld)
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

This proceeding is concerned with an application brought by the Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman (‘applicant’) against DLP (‘respondent’). The facts and circumstances that bring the respondent before the Tribunal can be summarised as follows.
The respondent was first granted registration by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (‘Board’) on 6 February 2020. At the material time,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Health Ombudsman v DLP and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QCAT 250
Decision Date: 21 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Health Ombudsman v DLP involved a registered nurse who faced disciplinary proceedings following his conviction for domestic violence offences against his wife. The primary concern was whether the Tribunal was satisfied that the respondent had demonstrated genuine insight and remorse, and whether his conduct, which was deemed out of character, constituted professional misconduct. Additionally, the Tribunal had to determine if there was any risk to the safety and wellbeing of the general public. The parties agreed on the findings and orders, except for the suspension period, which was the live issue.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included determining whether the respondent’s actions constituted professional misconduct under the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the appropriate sanction for such conduct, and whether the proposed suspension period was excessive. The Tribunal had to balance the need for professional accountability with the respondent's efforts towards rehabilitation and the absence of evidence suggesting he posed a risk to public safety.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had indeed engaged in professional misconduct. It accepted the respondent’s conduct was out of character and that he had been participating in rehabilitation efforts. However, the Tribunal concluded that a reprimand and a suspension of registration until 30 October 2025 were appropriate. It also set aside the immediate registration action imposed by the Office of the Health Ombudsman and maintained the non-publication order. The Tribunal did not order any costs.

The Tribunal’s decision was influenced by the respondent’s efforts towards rehabilitation and the lack of evidence suggesting he posed a risk to public safety. However, the Tribunal deemed it necessary to impose a suspension to send an appropriate message of general deterrence. The Tribunal thus ordered a suspension until 30 October 2025, alongside a reprimand.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT:

1. Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘HO Act’), the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2. Pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, the respondent is reprimanded.

3. Pursuant to s 107(3)(d) of the HO Act, the respondent’s registration is suspended until 30 October 2025.

4. Pursuant to s 62(2)(a)(ii) of the HO Act, the immediate registration action imposed on 14 March 2024 by the Office of the Health Ombudsman is set aside.

5. There be no order as to cost.

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The non-publication order made by the Deputy President on 14 April 2025 is to remain on foot in its current form.

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.