Ng v Health Care Complaints Commission

The appellant, an osteopath, appealed to the Supreme Court against a decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which found him guilty of professional misconduct based on an allegation that he sexually assaulted a patient during treatment. The CAT concluded that the patient's evidence was credible and preferred over the osteopath's denial. The primary legal issue was whether the CAT erred in its application of the law regarding the weight of evidence, particularly whether the Briginshaw standard of proof was applicable, and whether the tribunal was bound by the rules of evidence.

The court held that the CAT was not bound by the rules of evidence and was entitled to weigh the evidence in the manner it saw fit, provided it was satisfied to the Briginshaw standard that the allegations were proven on the balance of probabilities. The court found that the CAT had correctly applied the Briginshaw standard and had not erred in preferring the patient's evidence. The court further held that the grounds of appeal did not demonstrate any errors of law and that the CAT's decision was therefore upheld.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the CAT's decision. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed with costs.