Peers v Fletcher - [2024] VSC 427

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2024 02357

VALERIE PEERS	Plaintiff
v
MARTIN FLETCHER	First Defendant
- and -
MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF VICTORIA	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Watson J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 July 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 July 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Peers v Fletcher
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 427

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW – Whether Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) (‘National Law’) valid – Whether CEO of Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (‘AHPRA’) has standing to lay charges for alleged contraventions of the National Law – Cooperative legislation arrangement – No implied constitutional limitation – National Law valid – CEO has standing to lay charges – Proceeding dismissed with costs.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the First Defendant	Ms C Boston SC with Mr Minh-Quan Nguyen	Russell Kennedy
For the Second Defendant	No appearance

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff, Dr Valerie Peers, has been charged by the first defendant, Mr Martin Fletcher with breaching provisions of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) (‘the National Law’).

Dr Peers alleges that the charges against her are invalid because:

(a) the National Law is invalid; and

(b) Mr Fletcher is not an ‘administrative officer of the State of Victoria’.

Dr Peers seeks:

(a) a writ of prohibition directed to the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria which is presently dealing with the charges against her;

(b) a declaration that Mr Fletcher has no standing to bring the charges against her; and

(c) an order that Mr Fletcher be required to verify on oath the State ‘under which he is an administrative officer’.

For the reasons which follow I have determined that:

(a) the National Law is valid; and

(b) Mr Fletcher was permitted to bring the charges against Dr Peers.

In the circumstances, Dr Peers’ originating motion should be dismissed.

The National Law

On 1 July 2010, the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld) (‘the Queensland Act’) came into force. Section 4 of the Queensland Act provides:

Application of Health Practitioner Regulation National Law
The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law set out in the schedule –
(a) applies as a law of this jurisdiction; and
(b)as so applying, may be referred to as the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland); and

(c) as so applying, is a part of this Act.

The schedule to the Queensland Act provides in s 2 that the National Law commences in a participating jurisdiction ‘as provided by the Act of that jurisdiction that applies this Law as a law of that jurisdiction’. Section 3 provides that the object of the National Law is to establish a national registration and accreditation scheme for the regulation of health practitioners and students.

The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (Vic) (‘the Act’) came into force on 1 July 2010. Section 1 of the Act states that its purpose is to…

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 Peers v Fletcher

Details

AGLC: Peers v Fletcher [2024] VSC 427
Case: [2024] VSC 427
Decision Date: 24 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Peers v Fletcher, the applicant, Peers, sought judicial review of certain decisions made by the CEO of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, Fletcher. The applicant argued that the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) was invalid, and that the CEO did not have the authority to lay charges against him for alleged contraventions of the National Law. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues in this case were whether the National Law was valid, and whether the CEO of AHPRA had the standing to lay charges under the National Law. The court was required to determine the validity of the cooperative legislative arrangement and whether there were any implied constitutional limitations that would impact the standing of the CEO to lay charges.

The court held that the National Law was valid as it was a part of a cooperative legislative arrangement and did not contravene any implied constitutional limitations. The court found that the CEO of AHPRA had the authority to lay charges under the National Law as it was within their statutory powers. Consequently, the proceeding was dismissed with costs.

No further orders were made by the court. The decision confirms the validity of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law and the authority of the CEO of AHPRA to lay charges under the law.

Orders