Kumar v Medical Board of Australia
[2013] QCAT 88
| CITATION: | Kumar v Medical Board of Australia [2013] QCAT 88 |
| PARTIES: | Dr Praveen Kumar (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Medical Board of Australia (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR109-11 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Judge Alexander Horneman-Wren SC, Deputy President Assisted by: |
| DELIVERED ON: | 18 February 2013 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Leave is granted to withdraw the application. 2. Dr Kumar is to pay the Board’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings on a standard basis on the scale applicable to costs in the District Court of Queensland to be either agreed or assessed by a costs assessor. |
| CATCHWORDS: | PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS – LICENCES AND REGISTRATION – where the Board refused to renew the Registrant’s limited registration as the Registrant had not progressed to specialist or general registration – where the Registrant sought review of the Board’s decision – where the Registrant was granted a stay – where the Registrant was granted specialist registration before the hearing – where the Registrant sought leave to withdraw their application – whether leave to withdraw should be granted – whether the Tribunal should make an order as to costs Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009, ss 32, 46(1) |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (“QCAT Act”).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Dr Praveen Kumar, until 27 April 2011, held limited registration to practise in an area of need position as a General Medical Practitioner. At its meeting of 27 April 2011, the Medical Board of Australia refused Dr Kumar’s application for renewal of that registration. He was informed of that decision by letter dated 4 May 2011. He was required to cease all practice immediately.
Dr Kumar filed an application to review the decision of the Board in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal on 2 June 2011. He raised several administrative law grounds for the review of the decision. Those review grounds were: that the Board had erred, or committed an error of law, in the application of s 112(2) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) in refusing Dr Kumar’s application; that the Board had erred in its assessment of the evidence before it by failing to take into account relevant considerations or in failing to give them adequate weight; and that the Board had denied him procedural fairness.
On 15 July 2011 Dr Kumar filed an application to stay the decision of the Board. That stay application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Dr Kumar on 14 July 2011. By order of the Tribunal of 16 August 2011, the Board’s decision was stayed, by consent, upon the provision of certain undertakings given by Dr Kumar on 4 August 2011.
Following the stay of the decision, the application progressed through various processes within the Tribunal. On 10 November 2011 the Tribunal ordered that the further hearing of Dr Kumar’s application be adjourned to enable him to apply for specialist registration with the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, and pending the completion of investigations in relation to complaints made against him. The Tribunal also ordered some amendment to the earlier undertakings given by Dr Kumar.
At a directions hearing held in the Tribunal on 12 October 2011, Dr Kumar indicated his desire to withdraw his application. This was no doubt prompted by the fact that Dr Kumar had been informed that on 20 August 2012 the Queensland Registration Committee of the Medical Board of Australia had resolved to approve his application for specialist registration.
The Tribunal directed that the parties file and serve submissions in relation to Dr Kumar’s application for leave to withdraw his application for review; whether the conditions on his registration should be removed; and as to the costs of the proceedings.
On 16 November 2012 Dr Kumar filed a very short letter in the Tribunal in which he simply indicated that he would like to make a request of the Board to accept that he be allowed to withdraw his application and that the undertakings placed on his registration be removed. He also agreed to pay the costs ‘…as discussed with the Board lawyers, without accepting any wrong doing’.
The Board does not oppose Dr Kumar’s application for leave to withdraw the application for review. It also consents to the removal of the conditions currently placed upon his registration as those conditions were as a consequence of the undertakings given to the Tribunal in support of Dr Kumar’s stay application. The Board submits that, given Dr Kumar has agreed to pay the Board’s costs, the appropriate order would be that he pay the Board’s costs of and incidental to the application in the proceedings on a standard basis on the scale applicable to costs in the District Court of Queensland to be either agreed or assessed by a costs assessor. Dr Kumar does not oppose an order in those terms.[1]
[1]Dr Kumar’s letter to QCAT dated 16 November 2012.
Section 46(1) of the QCAT Act permits an applicant to withdraw his or her application before the matter is heard and decided by the Tribunal, if the Tribunal gives leave. As the application for leave to withdraw in this matter arises as a consequence of Dr Kumar’s subsequent attainment of specialist registration having rendered the proceedings futile, there is no reason why the Tribunal should not give leave. Leave to withdraw is granted.
In the circumstances of Dr Kumar having agreed to pay the Board’s costs, the order as proposed by the Board is appropriate.
The orders of the Tribunal will be:
1. Leave is granted to withdraw the application.
2. Dr Kumar is to pay the Board’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings on a standard basis on the scale applicable to costs in the District Court of Queensland to be either agreed or assessed by a costs assessor.
0
0
0