Medical Board of Australia v Putha

The tribunal found that Dr Putha had engaged in professional misconduct by making misleading statements in her application for registration and curriculum vitae. Dr Putha's registration was subsequently cancelled, and she was prohibited from applying for registration for a period of one year. The tribunal also ordered that Dr Putha pay the Board's costs of the proceedings.

The tribunal considered whether antecedent misconduct, or conduct by a practitioner before registration, could be a proper basis for a finding of professional misconduct under the adopted National Law. The tribunal found that misrepresentations in an application for registration could constitute professional misconduct and be the subject of a charge after registration, as it fell within the definition of 'professional misconduct' in s 5 of the adopted National Law. The tribunal also considered the level of sanction appropriate in this case, taking into account the seriousness of the misconduct and the need for general deterrence. The tribunal concluded that cancellation of registration was the appropriate order, as distinct from further suspension, and that the period of further disbarment should be fixed at one year.

The tribunal considered the costs of the proceedings, noting that the Board's function in bringing proceedings of this kind was performed in the public interest, and that the cost of the exercise was borne by the members of the profession. The tribunal had an untrammelled discretion to award costs in these cases, and the Board's submissions correctly pointed out that its function in bringing proceedings of this kind was performed in the public interest, and that the cost of the exercise was borne by the members of the profession. The tribunal concluded that it would be appropriate to order the respondent to pay the Board's costs, and that there was no reason to impose any particular limitation upon them.

The tribunal made the following orders: 1) Dr Putha behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct in that she made misleading statements in her application dated 30 December 2010 and curriculum vitae; 2) Dr Putha’s registration is cancelled; 3) Dr Putha is prohibited from applying for registration for a period of one year from the date of this order; and 4) Dr Putha is ordered to pay the Board’s costs of these proceedings as assessed by QICS or Hickey & Garrett (as appointed by the Board) on the standard basis on the District Court Scale of Costs within 28 days of receiving the assessment.