Psychology Board of Australia v GA (No 2)
[2014] QCAT 479
•10 October 2014
| CITATION: | Psychology Board of Australia v GA (No 2) [2014] QCAT 479 |
| PARTIES: | Psychology Board of Australia (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| GA (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR063-13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Hon JB Thomas AM QC, Member Ms Karen Susan Butler Ms Suzanne Fulford Mr Graeme Lawrence |
| DELIVERED ON: | 10 October 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Paragraph 3 of the order of the tribunal dated 14 August 2014 is amended by replacing "4 June 2015" with "4 December 2014". |
| CATCHWORDS: | Practice – Amendment under s 135 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) |
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 (Qld).
REASONS FOR DECISION
This is an application under section 135 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“the QCAT Act”) to correct what is alleged to be a material mistake in the Tribunal's order of 14 August 2014.
The basis of the application is that the Tribunal, instead of imposing a fully suspended suspension of 6 months on the applicant imposed a fully suspended suspension of 12 months.[1]
[1]See paras 3 and 4 of “orders made”.
This was a case in which the parties (the Board and GA) made joint submissions on sanction and presented a draft consent order which contained some suggestions with which the Tribunal did not agree.
Notwithstanding the agreement of the parties the Tribunal’s duty was to make the order that it considered appropriate.
The parties' joint submissions on sanction (paras 48-54) recited the various negotiations, and noted that the respondent had voluntarily ceased practice on 4 December 2013. The parties were then concerned that the negotiated provisional periods of suspension might have passed before the Tribunal was in a position to make orders. That in fact became the situation.
Paragraph 50 of the joint submissions shows that the parties contemplated an actual suspension of 6 months, and that “she would thereafter be subject to a suspended suspension and various conditions, the latter of which would conclude after 12 months, i.e. June 2015”. The length of the suspended suspension was not there stated, but other material shows that the parties originally contemplated an overall suspension period of 12 months, including 6 months actual suspension and only six months suspended suspension. In short, the original intention of the parties was to achieve 6 month actual suspension commencing 4 December 2013, and a further 6 months suspended suspension ending on 4 December 2014.
In making its orders the Tribunal was of the belief that the order would achieve “as far as is practicable” the substance of the orders contemplated by the parties “consistently with the views of this Tribunal”. Those qualifications were stated in para [48] of its reasons.
In the event, the substance of the orders contemplated by the parties has not been achieved. As the wording of para [48] of the Tribunal's reasons could give GA a legitimate sense of grievance if the present order is maintained, and as the Board does not seek to uphold the order, apparently preferring the original arrangement presented to the Tribunal, I am prepared to accept that the matter falls under s 135(1)(c) of the QCAT Act despite the qualifications there expressed.
Neither party suggested the precise alteration that should be made to the order, but it seems that the parties' desires would best be achieved by replacing the words and figures “4 June 2015” in para 3 of the order with “4 December 2014”.
0
1