Walters v Hanson

Case [2020] QSC 216

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Walters v Hanson & Ors [2020] QSC 216

PARTIES:

DARREN LESTER WALTERS
(applicant)
v
JACKIE HANSON, HEALTH SERVICE ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE, METRO NORTH HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SERVICE

(first respondent)
and
MICHELE GARDNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE PRINCE CHARLES HOSPITAL, METRO NORTH HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SERVICE
(second respondent)
and
METRO NORTH HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SERVICE
(third respondent)

FILE NO:

BS10396/19

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 July 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 February 2020

JUDGE:

Ryan J

ORDERS:

1. That the decision of the first and third respondents to suspend the applicant from duty under section 137 of the Public Service Act 2008, notified by notice dated 28 August 2019, be quashed, with effect from 28 August 2019.

2.   That the decision of the second and third respondents to suspend the applicant’s scope of clinical practice in the Metro North Hospital and Health Service be quashed, with effect from 3 September 2019.

3.   Unless the parties wish to make submissions to the contrary within seven days, the respondents are to pay the applicant’s costs on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – FAILURE TO OBSERVE STATUTORY PROCEDURE – where the applicant, the Director of Cardiology at the Prince Charles Hospital, was suspended from duty under the Public Service Act 2008 over conduct which is alleged to have contravened the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 – where section 137(2) of the Public Service Act 2008 requires the notice of suspension to state “when the suspension starts and ends” – where the letter notifying the applicant of his suspension states that his suspension will remain in place until an investigation can be undertaken and the outcome has been considered, unless otherwise determined – where the applicant seeks judicial review of the decision on the basis that it was made without observing procedures required by law in that it failed to specify an end date – whether the phrases “when the suspension starts and ends” and “period of suspension” require the notice to state the period by reference to dates or in terms of its duration – whether the notice achieved substantial compliance with the requirement of section 137(2)(a)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – ERROR OF LAW – where the applicant, the Director of Cardiology at the Prince Charles Hospital, was suspended from duty under the Public Service Act 2008 over conduct which is alleged to have contravened the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 – where the chief executive made a decision to suspend the applicant’s scope of practice on the basis that his employment had been suspended – where the decision was purportedly made under the credentialing procedure for practitioners in Metro North Hospital and Health Service – whether the credentialing procedure is an enactment within the meaning of the Judicial Review Act 1991, specifically, within the definition in s 7(3) of the Statutory Instruments Act

Continue reading Walters v Hanson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Walters v Hanson [2020] QSC 216
Case
[2020] QSC 216
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Walters v Hanson involved a dispute between the applicant, the Director of Cardiology at Prince Charles Hospital, and the respondents who had suspended the applicant from duty and from his scope of clinical practice. The applicant sought judicial review of these decisions, contending that they were made without observing procedures required by law. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, which was required to determine whether the respondents’ decisions to suspend the applicant were lawful and procedurally correct. The court had to consider whether the notice of suspension complied with statutory requirements and whether the credentialing procedure was an enactment that could be judicially reviewed.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting statutory provisions and determining the scope of judicial review. The applicant argued that the notice of suspension did not comply with section 137(2) of the Public Service Act 2008, which requires the notice to state “when the suspension starts and ends.” The letter of suspension indicated that the suspension would remain in place until an investigation was completed, without specifying an end date. The court needed to decide whether this constituted a failure to observe statutory procedures. Additionally, the applicant challenged the decision to suspend his scope of clinical practice, questioning whether the credentialing procedure was an enactment and whether the suspension of his employment was lawful. The court had to interpret the credentialing procedure and determine whether it permitted the respondents to suspend the applicant’s scope of practice.

In addressing these issues, the court found that the notice of suspension did not achieve substantial compliance with the statutory requirement to specify an end date. The phrases “when the suspension starts and ends” and “period of suspension” necessitated that the notice provide a clear end date or duration. Since the notice did not do so, the court concluded that the decision was not made in accordance with the law. The court also determined that the credentialing procedure was not an enactment under the Judicial Review Act 1991 and that the suspension of the applicant from duty was not a suspension of his employment, making the decision to suspend his scope of practice unlawful. Consequently, the court quashed both decisions and ordered the respondents to pay the applicant’s costs unless the parties wished to make submissions to the contrary within seven days.

The Queensland Court of Appeal quashed the decisions to suspend the applicant from duty and from his scope of clinical practice. The court found that the notice of suspension did not comply with statutory requirements and that the decision to suspend the applicant’s scope of practice was not authorised by the credentialing procedure. The court ordered that the decisions be quashed with immediate effect and directed that the respondents pay the applicant’s costs unless the parties chose to make submissions to the contrary.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the decision of the first and third respondents to suspend the applicant from duty under section 137 of the Public Service Act 2008, notified by notice dated 28 August 2019, be quashed, with effect from 28 August 2019.

2. That the decision of the second and third respondents to suspend the applicant’s scope of clinical practice in the Metro North Hospital and Health Service be quashed, with effect from 3 September 2019.

3. Unless the parties wish to make submissions to the contrary within seven days, the respondents are to pay the applicant’s costs on the standard basis.

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.