Jamil v Medical Board of Australia

The applicant, a medical practitioner, sought to appeal a decision of the Tribunal concerning a complaint made against him by two medical students, AB and CD. The complaint, investigated by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and referred to the Tribunal by the Medical Board of Australia (the Board), alleged professional misconduct including transgressing professional boundaries, breaching patient confidentiality, and creating false documents. The Board opposed the applicant's application. The matter came before Stanley J in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether to admit further evidence on appeal and, consequently, whether to grant an application to amend the notice of appeal. The applicant sought to introduce new evidence, and the Court considered the principles governing the admission of such evidence under Rule 218.17(1)(c) of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA). These principles include whether the evidence was available at the original hearing, whether it would have had an important influence on the decision, its practical impact, and the public interest in the finality of litigation.

Stanley J refused the application to adduce further evidence. His Honour reasoned that while the Court has a broad discretion to receive further evidence, similar considerations to those for "fresh evidence" on appeal apply. The Court considered whether the evidence was available at the hearing below and its potential influence on the original decision. The Court also noted the risk of prolonging litigation, increasing costs, and the public interest in finality. Specifically, the Court found that one proposed ground of appeal, relating to the expert evidence not being based on specialised knowledge, was not raised before the Tribunal or McIntyre J and permitting its amendment would likely necessitate recalling an expert witness, causing further delay and expense.

Consequently, as the application to adduce further evidence was refused, there was no justification to grant the application to amend the notice of appeal. The interlocutory application was dismissed, and the parties were to be heard as to costs.