Legal Research
Cases
Luo v Health Care Complaints Commission

Luo v Health Care Complaints Commission

Case [2025] NSWSC 1121 29 September 2025

Judicial Review

Statutory Interpretation

Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct

Professional Misconduct

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Luo v Health Care Complaints Commission [2025] NSWSC 1121
Hearing dates: 19–20 August 2025, further written submissions provided on 2, 9, 17 and 24 September 2025
Date of orders: 29 September 2025
Decision date: 29 September 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Griffiths AJ
Decision:
(1) Time is extended for the plaintiff to rely on the further amended summons dated 4 August 2025.
(2) Further amended summons dismissed.
(3) Plaintiff to pay defendant’s costs.

Catchwords:
OCCUPATIONS — health practitioners — misconduct and discipline — where disciplinary proceedings commenced by Health Care Complaints Commission — where NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal upheld complaints of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct — whether Tribunal erred on a question of law —meaning of “National Board” in s 130 of Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW)

Legislation Cited:
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), ss 55, 63, cl 29 of Sch 5
Coroners Act 2009 (NSW)
Coroners Regulation 2021 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18
Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW), s 30
Health Practitioner Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (NSW), Sch 1
Health Practitioner National Law Regulation 2018 (NSW), Pt 2
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law 2009 (NSW), ss 5, 23, 25, 31, 35, 130, 139, 139B, 139E
Health Practitioner Regulation (New South Wales) Regulation 2010 (NSW)
Health Practitioner Regulation (New South Wales) Regulation 2016 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Bruna v Health Care Complaints Commission [2025] NSWCA 105
Callan v Medical Board of Australia [2024] NSWSC 336
Chatoor v Health Care Complaints Commission of NSW [2020] NSWCA 111
Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26; 77 ALJR 1088
Ferella v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2014] NSWCA 378; 96 ATR 875
Health Care Complaints Commission v Le [2021] NSWCATOD 104
Health Care Complaints Commission v Luo [2025] NSWCATOD 5
Health Care Complaints Commission v Luo (No 2) [2025] NSWCATOD 7
Health Care Complaints Commission v Luo (No 3) [2025] NSWCATOD 45
Health Care Complaints Commission v Richards [2024] NSWCATOD 37
Health Care Complaints Commission v Robinson [2022] NSWCA 164
Huang v Walton (Court of Appeal (NSW), 20 April 1993, unrep)
Luo v R [2024] NSWCCA 58
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Pty Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24; [1986] HCA 40
Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 275 CLR 582; [2022] HCA 17
Reimers v Medical Board of Australia [2024] NSWCA 164
Thomas and Naaz Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2023] NSWCA 40

Texts Cited:
Chinese Medicine Board of Australia, Code of Conduct, March 2014

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Yun Sen Luo (Plaintiff)
Health Care Complaints Commission (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Self-represented (Plaintiff)
P Lowson (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Health Care Complaints Commission (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2025/00080326
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Jurisdiction:

Occupational Division

Citation:

[2025] NSWCATOD 5
[2025] NSWCATOD 7
[2025] NSWCATOD 45

Date of Decision:

30 January 2025
30 January 2025
23…

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.

Continue reading Luo v Health Care Complaints Commission

Details

AGLC: Luo v Health Care Complaints Commission [2025] NSWSC 1121
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1121
Decision Date: 29 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Luo v Health Care Complaints Commission, the respondent, Luo, a registered medical practitioner, was the subject of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Health Care Complaints Commission. The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal found Luo guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct. Luo sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision, arguing that the Tribunal had erred in interpreting the term “National Board” in section 130 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW). The primary question for the court was whether the Tribunal's interpretation of the statutory term was legally correct.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the term "National Board" in section 130 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW). The court had to examine the statutory language, the context in which it was used, and any relevant case law or legislative history that might shed light on the proper interpretation. The court also needed to assess whether the Tribunal's decision resulted in any legal errors that warranted the grant of judicial review.

In its decision, the court examined the statutory language and relevant context, finding that the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the term “National Board” as it appeared in section 130 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW). The court concluded that the Tribunal's interpretation was consistent with the statutory language and legislative intent. The court also found that the Tribunal had not erred in its application of the law and that its decision was not flawed to the extent that it warranted judicial intervention. Consequently, the court dismissed Luo's application for judicial review.

The court upheld the findings of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, confirming that Luo was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct. The court's decision meant that the disciplinary penalties imposed on Luo by the Tribunal remained in effect.

Orders