Health Ombudsman v Ward - [2018] QCAT 304

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Ward [2018] QCAT 304

PARTIES:

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN
(applicant)

v

SHARON LOUISE WARD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR132-18

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

14 September 2018

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Sheridan, Deputy President

ORDERS:

1. The application for miscellaneous matters dated 31 August 2018 seeking a non-publication order is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – NON-PUBLICATION OF EVIDENCE – ORDERS – NON-PUBLICATION OF IDENTITY – where a non-publication order had previously been made in relation to separate but related interim proceedings extending to the protection of the respondent’s identity, children and partner – where the respondent applied in these proceedings for a non-publication order preventing publication of identifying information about the respondent, her family and partner – whether it is necessary to make a non-publication order in these proceedings

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66(2)
Health Ombudsman Act 2009 (Qld), s 79, s 103(1)(a), s 104

Cutbush v Team Maree Property Service (No 3) [2010] QCATA 89
Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited [2010] FCAFC 115
Legal Services Commissioner v Sing (No 2) [2007] LPT 005
Psychology Board of Australia v Duangpatra [2012] QCAT 514

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

L Reibelt, legal officer of the Health Ombudsman

Respondent:

Self-represented

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The respondent filed a miscellaneous application on 31 August 2018 seeking that a non-publication order be made in these referral proceedings which would extend to protect the identity of any of her family members, her partner as well as herself. The applicant filed submissions in reply on 6 September 2018, opposing the granting of such an order.
For the reasons that follow, the application for miscellaneous matters dated 31 August 2018 seeking a non-publication order is refused.

Background

The respondent in these proceedings had previously sought from the tribunal a review of the Health Ombudsman’s decision to issue an interim prohibition order in relation to the provision of any health service by her in her capacity as a massage therapist. In those proceedings, the practitioner sought a non-publication order prohibiting the publication of her name and details of her medical information, as well as the names of her children, step-child and partner. Ultimately, a non-publication order was granted in those terms, other than as required for the purposes of s 79 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2009 (Qld) (HO Act). The Health Ombudsman in those proceedings did not object to that course being taken as the proceedings were interim in nature.
On 22 May 2018, the Health Ombudsman referred to the tribunal these disciplinary proceedings against the respondent pursuant to s 103(1)(a) and s 104 of the HO Act. On 27 July 2018, the tribunal made a non-publication order upon the filing of a miscellaneous application by the Health Ombudsman, prohibiting the publication of…

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 Ward 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: [2018] QCAT 304
Decision Date: 14 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Health Ombudsman v Ward involved the Health Ombudsman as the plaintiff seeking to hold the defendant, Ward, accountable for breaches in health service conduct. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court, focusing on the issues of privacy and the public interest in health service oversight. The primary dispute centred on whether the court should extend a non-publication order, which had been previously granted in related interim proceedings, to cover this current case. Ward sought to protect her identity and that of her family and partner from being published in the proceedings.

The legal issues before the court included determining whether it was necessary to make a non-publication order in the current proceedings, considering the existing order in the interim proceedings. The court had to weigh the need for protecting Ward's privacy against the public interest in transparency and accountability within health services. The court's task was to assess if the existing protections were sufficient or if additional measures were required to safeguard Ward's personal information in this specific case.

In ruling on the application, the court carefully considered the context of the previous non-publication order and the specifics of the current proceedings. It concluded that the existing protections were adequate and that extending the non-publication order was not necessary. The court was mindful of the importance of privacy but found that the current protections were sufficient to balance the interests at hand. Therefore, the application for a non-publication order was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for miscellaneous matters dated 31 August 2018 seeking a non-publication order is refused.

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.

CITATION:	Health Ombudsman v Ward [2018] QCAT 304
PARTIES:	HEALTH OMBUDSMAN (applicant)
v
SHARON LOUISE WARD (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR132-18
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:	14 September 2018
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Judge Sheridan, Deputy President
ORDERS:	1. The application for miscellaneous matters dated 31 August 2018 seeking a non-publication order is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	EVIDENCE – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – NON-PUBLICATION OF EVIDENCE – ORDERS – NON-PUBLICATION OF IDENTITY – where a non-publication order had previously been made in relation to separate but related interim proceedings extending to the protection of the respondent’s identity, children and partner – where the respondent applied in these proceedings for a non-publication order preventing publication of identifying information about the respondent, her family and partner – whether it is necessary to make a non-publication order in these proceedings Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66(2) Health Ombudsman Act 2009 (Qld), s 79, s 103(1)(a), s 104 Cutbush v Team Maree Property Service (No 3) [2010] QCATA 89 Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited [2010] FCAFC 115 Legal Services Commissioner v Sing (No 2) [2007] LPT 005 Psychology Board of Australia v Duangpatra [2012] QCAT 514
REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	L Reibelt, legal officer of the Health Ombudsman
Respondent:	Self-represented
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).