Health Ombudsman v Martin

[2024] QCAT 537

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Martin [2024] QCAT 537

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

SARAH DEANNE MARTIN

(respondent) OCR189-23

Occupational regulation matters 12 April 2024

15 February 2024 Brisbane

Judicial Member Reid

PARTIES:

APPLICATIONNO/S:

MATTERTYPE:

DELIVEREDON:

HEARINGDATE:

HEARDAT:

DECISION OF:

ORDERS:

    Pursuant to s 61 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the Tribunal orders that the date for filing the application for correction of a decision is extended until 31 January 2024.

    As per Order 3 in the Tribunal’s decision on 4 December 2023 in Health Ombudsman v Sarah Deanne Martin (OCR189-23), the conditions imposed on the respondent’s registration are in the terms of the amended schedule.

APPEARANCES &         This matter was heard and determined on the papers REPRESENTATION:     pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative

Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 4 December 2023, orders were made by me, sitting with assessors, concerning an application by the Health Ombudsman for the respondent to be dealt with for conduct which I found constituted professional misconduct as a psychologist.

2. Ultimately the matter was dealt with on the basis of agreed facts and an agreed proposed order.

3. In such circumstances, orders as per those jointly proposed by the parties are habitually made. They were in this case. Two issues have now emerged.

4. In the course of negotiating the matter on behalf of the Health Ombudsman, their lawyer accidentally omitted to include in the proposed order, a condition recommended by AHPRA which, in essence, required the respondent to do certain

2

things, in order to allow the Psychology Board to obtain reports from the respondent’s supervisors, and to ensure those supervisors were appropriately chosen by the Board.

1. Further proposed conditions were suggested by the Health Ombudsman and are accepted by the respondent as appropriate.

2. The second issue concerns an inconsistency in the orders that were made, by reason of conditions 2 and 4 requiring, effectively, the commencement of such supervision within two different nominated time periods.

3. Again, further proposed corrections are accepted by the respondent as appropriate.

4. The parties, in joint submissions, seek orders pursuant to s 61 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), extending the time for filing an application to correct my earlier decision and for orders correcting the conditions, to overcome the two issues identified.

5. In essence, the parties contend the power to do so is contained in s 135 of the QCAT Act, to “correct a decision” if the decision contains a clerical mistake or a mistake caused by an accidental slip or omission.

6. I am not entirely persuaded that the difficulties I have identified are so categorised.

7. The second option, it seems to me, is to deal with the matter under s 133 of the QCAT Act, which applies if it is not possible for the decision to be completed or if there are difficulties implementing it.

8. So too the first issue may not be properly characterised in the way required by s 135 but better seen as a problem with implementing the decision.

9. Be that as is may, I am prepared to make orders as follows:

   Pursuant to s 61 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the Tribunal orders that the date for filing the application for correction of a decision is extended until 31 January 2024.

As per Order 3 in the Tribunal’s decision on 4 December 2023 in Health Ombudsman v Sarah Deanne Martin (OCR189-23), the conditions imposed on the respondent’s registration are in the terms of the amended schedule.