Pharmacy Board of Australia v Fitzpatrick (No 2)
[2012] QCAT 613
| CITATION: | Pharmacy Board of Australia v Fitzpatrick (No 2) [2012] QCAT 613 |
| PARTIES: | Pharmacy Board of Australia |
| v | |
| Timothy Fitzpatrick t/as Landsborough Chemist |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR003-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Kerrie O'Callaghan, Acting Deputy President Assisted by: Karen Allen Ken MacDougall Dr Karin Walduck |
| DELIVERED ON: | 29 November 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Mr Fitzpatrick must pay the Board’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings as agreed or assessed on the standard basis against the District Court of Queensland scale. |
| CATCHWORDS: | HEALTH PRACTITIONER – DISCIPLINARY – PHARMACIST – where Board established its case – where the parties agreed – costs Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 32 Pharmacy Board of Australia v Booy [2011] QCAT 522 |
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
On 31 October 2012 the Tribunal delivered its decision on this disciplinary referral. In its submissions on sanction the Board submitted that Mr Fitzpatrick should pay the costs of and incidental to the proceedings. Mr Fitzpatrick in his submissions on sanction agreed this was appropriate. The Tribunal did not address this in its reasons for decision or final orders made on 31 October 2012.
The Board brought this to the attention of the Tribunal. The failure to address orders was an oversight and the failure to order costs was not a decision that the Board was not entitled to costs, subsequently the Tribunal is addressing the issue in these reasons.
Ordinarily where the Board has established its case it is appropriate that the Tribunal award costs in its favour.[1] As concluded in the reasons given on 31 October 2012 the Board has established its case. Accordingly the Tribunal agrees with the parties' submissions and orders Mr Fitzpatrick pay the Board’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings as agreed or as assessed on the standard basis as against the District Court scale of fees.
[1] Pharmacy Board of Australia v Booy [2011] QCAT 522.
0