Medical Board of Australia v Leggett (No 3)

[2013] QCAT 312

CITATION: Medical Board of Australia v Leggett (No 3) [2013] QCAT 312

PARTIES:	Medical Board of Australia (Applicant)
v
Dr Andrew Alfred George Leggett (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR283-12

MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Judge Alexander Horneman-Wren SC, Deputy President

DELIVERED ON: 25 June 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.    The Medical Board of Australia pay Dr Leggett’s costs of and incidental to the application to amend Annexure ‘A’ to the referral on a standard basis on the District Court scale, in a sum agreed, or failing an agreement as assessed .

CATCHWORDS: HEALTH PROFESSIONALS – MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – where the Board filed an application to amend the grounds for referral – where application refused – whether the Board should pay the registrant’s costs of the application

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

1. On 14 May 2013 the Tribunal published its reasons in respect of an application by the Medical Board of Australia to amend Annexure ‘A’ of the referral. That application was allowed in part. It was, however, refused insofar as it sought to include a further ground three.

2. In his submissions in response to the application to amend, Dr Leggett sought an order that the Board pay his costs of the application and the costs thrown away by the amendments to the referral notice regardless of the outcome of the application. In supplementary submissions contained in correspondence dated 22 April 2013 the Board submitted that the costs of the application ought to follow the event.

3. In its decision of 14 May 2013 the Tribunal did not address the issue of costs.

4. In my view, the substantial dispute between the parties on the amendment application was in respect of ground three. It was to that issue that most of the submissions were addressed. Dr Leggett having been successful in respect of that issue, I am of the view that the Board ought to pay Dr Leggett’s costs of and incidental to the application.

5. The Tribunal will order accordingly.