Woods v Health Care Complaints Commission

Woods appealed to the District Court against a decision of the Psychologists Registration Board finding him guilty of professional misconduct. The conduct in question occurred before the commencement of the *Psychologists Act 1989* (NSW). The District Court dismissed Woods' appeal. Woods then sought judicial review of the District Court's decision in the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the *Psychologists Act 1989* had retrospective operation, specifically concerning the definition of professional misconduct. The court had to determine if conduct occurring prior to the Act's commencement could be the subject of disciplinary proceedings under the Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the *Psychologists Act 1989* did not operate retrospectively. The court reasoned that legislation should not be presumed to operate retrospectively unless there is a clear legislative intention to that effect. In this instance, the Act did not contain any express words or necessary implication that would suggest it applied to conduct that predated its commencement. Therefore, the Board and the District Court had erred in applying the Act to conduct that occurred before it was in force.

The Court of Appeal made orders in the nature of certiorari quashing the decisions of the Psychologists Registration Board and the District Court, with costs awarded to Woods. The Health Care Complaints Commission's cross-summons was dismissed with costs.