Pharmacy Board of Australia v Jattan

The Pharmacy Board of Australia sought a disciplinary order against a pharmacist, Jattan, who had been found to have behaved in a way that amounted to professional misconduct. The case was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which had the authority to consider the matter under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Qld). The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether it could consider joint submissions regarding the appropriate sanction for the misconduct, and if so, whether the decision could be suspended or an alternative order made following the repeal of certain sections of the Health Practitioner (Disciplinary Proceedings) Act 1999 (Qld).

The Tribunal needed to determine if it was precluded from considering joint submissions on sanctions by the decision in Barbaro v The Queen, and whether the principles in Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union applied to disciplinary proceedings. It also had to consider whether the decision could be suspended under section 247 of the Health Practitioner (Disciplinary Proceedings) Act 1999 (Qld), and if so, whether it could make an ancillary order under section 114 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 that would have a similar effect to the repealed sections.

The Tribunal concluded that it could consider the joint submissions as to sanction and that the principles in Barbaro did not apply to disciplinary proceedings in this context. It held that the decision could be suspended under section 247 of the Health Practitioner (Disciplinary Proceedings) Act 1999 (Qld), and that it could make an ancillary order under section 114 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 that would operate to a similar effect as the repealed sections. The Tribunal ordered that the parties submit any proposed orders within seven days.

In summary, the Tribunal found that it could consider joint submissions on sanctions, and make an ancillary order that would have a similar effect to the repealed sections, even though the decision was suspended. The parties were directed to submit any proposed orders within a specified timeframe.