Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Quach v Horvarth [2022] NSWCA 49 Hearing dates: 28 March 2022 Date of orders: 28 March 2022 Decision date: 28 March 2022 Before: Basten JA Decision: Dismiss the notice of appeal e-filed on 15 March 2022 as incompetent.
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – vexatious proceedings order – prohibition on commencement of fresh proceedings in specified matters – judicial review application dismissed in a specified matter – fresh claim for damages based on unlawfulness of same conduct – claim dismissed under vexatious proceedings order – notice of appeal dismissed as incompetent under vexatious proceedings order
Legislation Cited: Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW), Sch 1, cl 11
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW), ss 8, 13
Cases Cited: Health Care Complaints Commission v Quach (No 2) [2015] NSWCATOD 32
Health Care Complaints Commission v Quach [2015] NSWCATOD 2
Quach v Health Care Complaints Commission [2016] NSWCA 49
Quach v Horvarth [2021] NSWSC 1401
Quach v New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission [2016] NSWCA 10
Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Michael Van Thanh Quach (Applicant)
Professor John Horvarth (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Applicant unrepresented
Applicant unrepresented
File Number(s): 2022/74091 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Common Law Division
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 9 March 2022
- Before:
- Campbell J
- File Number(s):
- 2021/123675
Judgment
-
BASTEN JA: In 1998 Mr Quach applied to the Medical Board of New South Wales for registration as a medical practitioner. He was academically qualified, but there was an issue as to whether he suffered from a mental impairment. It appears that he was registered as an intern in September 1999, subject to conditions.
-
On 19 January 1999, the President of the Medical Board, in accordance with the provisions of cl 11 of Sch 1 of the Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW) (since repealed) advised that an inquiry would be held into the eligibility of Dr Quach to be registered under the provisions of the Act.
-
He subsequently commenced practice, but was the subject of complaints to the Health Care Complaints Commission. The Commission in turn filed notices of complaint with the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NSW), Occupational Division, which was the successor to the Medical Tribunal. The complaints were upheld and, on 5 February 2015, the Tribunal made findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct. [1] On 21 April 2015 the Tribunal ordered that Dr Quach’s registration be cancelled, providing further that there be no application for review for a period of seven years from that date. An order prohibiting him from providing any health service was made. [2]
1. Health Care Complaints Commission v Quach [2015] NSWCATOD 2.
2. Health Care Complaints Commission v Quach (No 2) [2015] NSWCATOD 32.
-
Mr Quach then commenced proceedings by way of summons in the…
Continue reading Quach v Horvarth
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Quach v Horvarth [2022] NSWCA 49
- Case
- [2022] NSWCA 49
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the notice of appeal was competent, given the existence of the vexatious proceedings order. This involved considering whether the fresh claim for damages constituted a "proceeding" within the meaning of that order, and whether the appeal itself was a "proceeding" that was prohibited by the order.
Basten JA reasoned that the vexatious proceedings order, which prohibited the appellant from commencing any fresh proceedings in specified matters, extended to appeals arising from those matters. His Honour found that the claim for damages was a fresh proceeding in a specified matter, and therefore prohibited by the order. Consequently, the notice of appeal, which sought to challenge the dismissal of that prohibited proceeding, was itself an incompetent proceeding.
Accordingly, the notice of appeal filed on 15 March 2022 was dismissed as incompetent.
Orders
Orders of the court
Dismiss the notice of appeal e-filed on 15 March 2022 as incompetent.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.