WSS v Medical Board of Australia

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:
WSS V MEDICAL BOARD OF AUSTRALIA [2025] QCAT 104

PARTIES: WSS

v

MEDICAL BOARD OF AUSTRALIA

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR 217 of 2024

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

11 April 2025 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

11 April 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Dann, Deputy President

ORDERS:

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT:

1.     The applicant’s application dated 19 March 2025 is dismissed.

2. The Tribunal refuses to extend the time fixed for the start of the review proceeding pursuant to s 61 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

3. Pursuant to s 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the proceeding is dismissed.

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS:

1.    The original affidavit of the applicant affirmed 31 March 2025 be placed in a sealed envelope and marked “not to be opened without an order of a member of the Tribunal”.

2.    Paragraphs 15, 47, 48 and 49 of each copy of the affidavit of the applicant affirmed 31 March 2025 on the Tribunal’s file be redacted.

3.    Each of the parties is granted leave to use and rely upon the affidavit of the applicant affirmed 31 March 2025 and the affidavit of the applicant affirmed 1 April 2025 in proceedings before other courts or tribunals or in matters involving the Medical Council of New South Wales.

4. The Board has liberty to apply within 28 days under s 102 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

5. Until further order, pursuant to s 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) publication of:

(a)     the contents of a document or other thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal;

(b)     evidence given before the Tribunal;

(c)     any order made or reasons given by the Tribunal

is prohibited to the extent that it could identify or lead to the identification of the applicant, or any patient of the applicant, or any family member of such patient, except to any regulators of the medical profession or save as is necessary for the parties to engage in and progress this proceeding, or for the applicant or regulators of the medical profession to engage in and progress any other proceedings in a Tribunal or Court of this jurisdiction or another jurisdiction.

6.     Any material affected by the non-publication order shall not be copied or inspected without the order of the Tribunal, except by a judicial member, Tribunal member, any assessor appointed to assist the Tribunal, the staff of the Tribunal registry or the parties to this proceeding (including their legal representatives).

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

L Baird, Solicitor of MinterEllison

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is the application today?

On 11 April 2025 I heard and determined this matter. Save as to the section dealing with the making of a non-publication order at the end of these reasons, these are the reasons I gave orally on that day, settled with the assistance of the transcript.
The respondent, the Medical Board of Australia (‘Board’), seeks an order dismissing the proceeding pursuant to section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’). The proceeding was filed out of time and the Board submits:
(a)Time to file the proceeding should not be extended because:
(i) one part of the decision sought to be under review is not an appellable decision;
(ii) for the other part, there are some months of unexplained delay, other matters relied on by the applicant do not assist in addressing the delay and the Board will be prejudiced if the time is extended;
(b)The proceeding should be summarily dismissed pursuant to s 47 of the QCAT Act because it is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or otherwise an abuse of process.

Why is the application being brought?

The application comes consequent upon WSS (‘applicant’) being directed by the Tribunal on 29 November 2024 to file by 13 December 2024:
(a)a list of each decision he seeks review of on this application;
(b)a copy of each such decision; and
(c)any information on which he relies for an extension of time to file his application for review.
In responding to that direction (albeit late) the applicant, on 13 January 2025 filed a document called “Application for removal of condition on registration under s 199(f) of National Law: Submissions as per Directional Hearing in November 2024” and, ultimately seven exhibits to that document.
It became apparent at the directions hearing on 11 February 2025 that only ‘Exhibit 1’ f the seen exhibits had been filed and the applicant filed the remaining documents in the Tribunal on 12 February 2025. The relevant ones for today’s purposes are:
(a)three letters from Dr P Ratnayake, which I’ll refer to later;
(b)a certificate of current enrolment from the University of Sydney;
(c)a letter from the Westmead Institute dated 5 April 2023;
(d)a letter from the Medical Council of New South Wales (‘MCNSW’) dated 7 November 2023 advising of the suspension order it had made that day; and
(e)some material from Centrelink.
All of those categories of material have been included by the Board in its hearing bundle, which is exhibit 1 on the application. Insofar as there were other documents attached as part of that material, the Tribunal has had reference to them so far as is necessary.
At the 11 February 2025 directions hearing the Tribunal noted that the decision under review was the decision of the Board made on 13 September 2023 and contained in a letter to the applicant dated 19 September 2023 (‘Decision’)[1]. This was in circumstances where the applicant confirmed he was seeking review of this decision.[2] The applicant is also purporting to seek review of what he alleges is a failure of the Board to make a decision about approving his reflective practice report.[3] He contends there is an ‘implied refusal’. I deal with that further below.
[1]LB6 to the affidavit of Lachlan Baird affirmed 19 March 2025 (‘Baird Affidavit’).
[2]Transcript of the Directions Hearing 11 February 2025 1-2 [41]-[46].
[3]Transcript of the Directions Hearing 11 February 2025 1-12 [42], 1-13 [33].
The Board has included in its material on its s 47 application the relevant documents filed by the applicant and the Tribunal has considered those.
At the directions hearing on 25 March 2025 the Tribunal confirmed with the applicant that the Board’s application was to summarily dismiss the proceeding. It explained what was entailed in that and made directions for the applicant to file further submissions and listing it to be heard at an in-person hearing today.
The applicant filed two further affidavits, one by him dated 31 March 2025 and the other dated 1 April 2025. He did not attend the hearing in person and filed an application to appear by telephone late yesterday. The Board’s representative travelled from interstate to attend the hearing in person. Conscious of the Tribunal’s obligation in s 3 of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal has proceeded today with the applicant being present by telephone.

What is the underlying proceeding about?

The underlying proceeding is the Decision to:
(a)Refuse the applicant’s application under s 125 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (‘National Law’) to remove condition one of the conditions on the applicant’s registration imposed on 29 June 2021 by decision of this Tribunal (‘refusal to remove condition decision’);[4]
(b)Open an own motion notification to assess whether the applicant has engaged in conduct that accords with the standards of professional practice relating to registered medical practitioners in Australia (‘own motion notification decision’);
(c)Approve the applicant’s education program nomination as being suitable for the purpose of conditions imposed on 25 August 2021 and its decision of 15 February 2023 to require the applicant to submit a further nomination (‘education program nomination approval decision’).
[4]WSS v Medical Board of Australia (No 2) [2021] QCAT 190.
Whilst the background factual narrative is complex, a short summary of the relevant background giving rise to the Decision is:[5]
[5]Extracts from WSS v Medical Board of Australia [2021] QCAT 5 [7] (‘WSS (No 1)’).
(a)The applicant was medically qualified in Sri Lanka in 1996. He took a position at a hospital at Alice Springs in July 2005, where he remained for a year. Prior to the Decision, he had worked at a variety of hospitals, sometimes on the basis that a position at one hospital led to a posting for a period to another. It is not clear whether he has ever been accepted onto a training programme. As time passed he was working as a Principal House Officer alongside other doctors who had been qualified for shorter periods than he had. He told a psychiatrist there were concerns raised about his communication style and interpersonal difficulties at the hospital where he was working in 2007 – 2008. Ongoing issues concerning difficulties with his communications in hospital settings in various hospitals where he worked persisted through to 2014;[6]
[6]Extracts from ibid [7]-[9], footnotes omitted.
(b)In June 2015 the Board imposed conditions on his registration requiring level three supervision and treatment by other health professionals. Just after that he got a position as a Principal House Officer at an outer suburban hospital in Brisbane. Almost at once it appears there was dissatisfaction with his performance and he was counselled by supervisors. The hospital placed restrictions on his duties about a month after he started there;[7]
(c)The basis on which the Board took action which became the subject of WSS (No 1) arose in the applicant’s treatment of two patients:
(i)      The first patient presented at the emergency department in September 2015 with a cough which prompted a diagnosis of congestive heart failure. The factual findings the Tribunal made relate to shortcomings in how the applicant assessed the patient’s respiratory difficulties and his consequent level of care needs. He had been previously counselled not to approach the assessment in the manner he approached it. The patient did not receive the close supervision required and the applicant’s handover to the next medical registrar was not documented. Ultimately the patient suffered a heart attack and a few days later his life support was turned off;[8]
(ii)      The second patient presented to emergency two days after the first patient. This patient complained of a possible seizure and was known to have a functional neurological disorder (a conclusion reached by a consultant neurologist after investigations). The applicant examined him, did some research and announced he had a diagnosis of a rare degenerative condition of the nerves. The patient subsequently complained about the way the applicant behaved, including that the examination had been unnecessarily rough and painful, together with the applicant asking him extensive and intrusive questions about the patient’s genitalia including examining them after permission was refused. The applicant conducted the neurological examination inappropriately, the Tribunal found. It found he argued about that before the Tribunal and the Tribunal found he should not have been doing it anyway, because the consultant had devised the treatment plan and the applicant should not have deviated from it without obtaining the consultant’s approval. The forcible examination of the patient’s genitalia, the Tribunal found, was irrelevant to the patient’s presentation and was the most concerning part of the treatment. Apparently, too, all of this occurred after the applicant’s shift had finished and when he should not have been at the hospital at all;[9]
(iii)     After these events, the applicant lost his job at the hospital, did some medical training and in 2016 held a role at another hospital in a different state. He was suspended pending an investigation into his communication and clinical stills and resigned his employment at the end of 2016. The Medical Board of Western Australia refused to approve him working as a resident medical officer at a hospital in that state, on the ground of his notification history and difficulty in providing appropriate supervision. He did some work in general practice and worked in non-medical positions. At the time of the hearing in 2020 he had been working in general practice in a provincial area since mid-2019 and his supervisors were positive about his performance, but he wished to return to hospital work;[10]
(iv)     The Tribunal found that the assessment and consequent treatment of the first patient constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct.[11] It found that the actions taken concerning the second patient constituted unprofessional conduct.[12] It found the applicant had an impairment;[13]
(d)The Tribunal in WSS (No 1) found it was not confined to the conditions the applicant was then under. In WSS v Medical Board of Australia (No 2) [2021] QCAT 190 (‘WSS (No 2)’), the Tribunal imposed conditions on 29 June 2021 which included that the applicant must not practice in any position in a hospital setting. It expressed the review period for these conditions as two years from the date of imposition of the conditions;[14]
(e)About two months later, on 25 August 2021, the Board imposed education conditions on the applicant’s registration. This was following performance related concerns about his prescribing of S8 drugs and managing a patient showing signs of drug taking behaviours.[15] The applicant sought to have these conditions reviewed and the Tribunal, in a decision on 18 November 2022, confirmed the Board’s decision;[16]
(f)On 15 February 2023 the Board approved a program of education which addressed part of the education required by the conditions imposed on 25 August 2021 and directed the applicant to nominate a program of education to address the topics of assessment, treatment and management of patients presenting with mental health concerns and chronic pain;[17]
(g)By application dated 6 July 2023, the applicant applied to have the condition prohibiting him working in a hospital setting removed pursuant to s 125(1)(a)(i) of the National Law.[18] In the Decision the Board refused the applicant’s application to have that condition removed. The Board otherwise approved an education program nomination as being suitable for the purpose of the conditions imposed on 25 August 2021.[19]
[7]Extracts from ibid [10], footnotes omitted.
[8]Extracts from ibid [11]-[22], footnotes omitted.
[9]Extracts from ibid [23]-[32], footnotes omitted.
[10]Extracts from ibid [33]-[41], footnotes omitted.
[11]Ibid [75]-[76].
[12]Ibid [77]-[83].
[13]Ibid [93].
[14]WSS v Medical Board of Australia (No 2) [2021] QCAT 190.
[15]Baird Affidavit (n 3) LB6.
[16]WSS v Medical Board of Australia [2022] QCAT 447.
[17]Baird Affidavit (n 3) LB5 [21]-[21].
[18]Ibid LB6.
[19]Ibid.
The other factually relevant matters are:
(a)On 18 October 2023 (which was after the time prescribed for the applicant to apply to the Tribunal for review of the Decision) a delegate of Ahpra decided pursuant to s 127A(2) of the National Law that any change, removal or revocation may be decided by the review body of a co-regulatory jurisdiction.[20] The delegate’s comments recorded in the decision included that “[a]s the Practitioner’s [p]rincipal place of practice is now in NSW, a review of the conditions should be decided by a review body of NSW, being the [MCSNW]”. There is an email chain before the Tribunal indicating that on 19 October 2023 Ahpra communicated this to the MCNSW which thereafter accepted the transfer;
(b)On 7 November 2023 the MCNSW suspended the applicant’s registration[21] and it remains suspended as at today;
(c)The applicant has provided the letters earlier referred to from his treating psychiatrist dated 6 March 2024, 7 May 2024 and 27 June 2024 (‘the psychiatrist’s letters’).[22] The psychiatrist’s letters confirm the psychiatrist:
(i)      has known the applicant since he was a medical student in Sri Lanka between 1990 and 1996;
(ii)      consulted with the applicant then for mental health issues and a diagnosis of Bipolar Affective Disorder was made at that time. He treated the applicant for ten years;
(iii)     met the applicant again after many years in March 2024. The applicant told him about events in 2023 and his impression is that the applicant’s illness had not been adequately controlled on medication and he had gone through many periods of instability which may have prompted him to take unwise decisions. He understood the applicant had not divulged the fact he suffers from a psychiatric illness to Ahpra. He opined that if the applicant undertakes to keep regular appointments for review, his illness can be stabilised. He will try to adjust the applicant’s medication so it will not impair his judgment or actions in the future.
[20]Ibid LB7.
[21]Ibid LB8.
[22]The three letters are contained in the Baird Affidavit (n 3) LB9.
On 24 September 2024, the applicant filed this application in the Tribunal. On 11 February 2025, the Tribunal noted that the decision under review is the Decision (as defined earlier in these reasons).
The Board first advised the Tribunal by email on 6 November 2024, copying in the applicant, that it had asked the applicant to withdraw his application. By email to the Tribunal on 7 November 2024, the applicant stated he would not withdraw his application.
The applicant also filed in the Tribunal materials which included a reflective practice report submitted by the applicant to the Board on 18 April 2023. That is contained in the material which the Board has filed on the application. On 19 March 2025 the applicant filed in the Tribunal an application for miscellaneous matters claiming that an error of law by the Board and the Tribunal arose in the imposition of the condition on his registration prohibiting practice in a hospital setting, (‘error of law application’) and seeking that this ground be vacated from his application for review on the basis it is appropriately litigated in his case before the Supreme Court of Queensland, not in the Tribunal. Today the applicant confirmed he presses that application.
Before the Tribunal today is a bundle which is marked exhibit 1, and in addition there is from the Board a note in response to the applicant’s affidavit dated 31 March 2025. Because the applicant is not here in person, I confirm for the purpose of the record that the Board’s bundle includes his affidavit dated 31 March 2025 and his affidavit dated 1 April 2025.

What is the Tribunal’s jurisdiction?

Section 9(2) of the QCAT Act provides that the Tribunal is conferred with original, review and appeal jurisdiction. Section 17 provides that the Tribunal’s review jurisdiction is conferred by an enabling Act to review a decision made or taken to have been made by another entity under that Act. The Tribunal cannot review anything at large; it can only review those decisions an enabling Act provides it can review.
Section 5 of the National Law defines “responsible tribunal” and notes that the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal is the responsible tribunal for the Queensland jurisdiction.
Appellable decisions
Section 199(1) of the National Law sets out those decisions that are capable of review by the Tribunal. They are called appellable decisions and, relevantly, include a decision by a National Board to impose or change a condition on a person’s registration (with some exceptions),[23] and a decision to by a National Board to refuse to change or remove a condition imposed on the person’s registration.[24]
[23]Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) s 199(1)(e).
[24]Ibid s 199(1)(f).

The Board submits that a failure by a Board to consider a reflective practice report submitted by a registered health practitioner is not an appellable decision as defined under s 199 of the National Law and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the applicant’s reflective practice report. That submission arises from the terms of s 199 itself.
It appears from the applicant’s document filed on 13 January 2025 that he relies on s 12 of what he calls the ‘ACAT Act’ to contend that a delay in making a decision is deemed a decision to refuse to make the decision which can be appealed to the Tribunal. The ACAT Act has no application to this tribunal.
The Tribunal finds that if there was any failure by the Board to consider the reflective practice report, that failure is not an appellable decision under s 199(1) of the National Law. It therefore finds that the Tribunal does not have review jurisdiction in relation to that matter.
For the sake of completeness, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the own motion notification decision or the education program nomination approval decision are appellable decisions under s 199(1) of the National Law and therefore finds that the Tribunal does not have review jurisdiction in relation to those decisions either.
The Tribunal is satisfied, however, that the refusal to remove a condition decision is an appellable decision under s 199(1)(f) of the National Law and therefore finds that the Tribunal has review jurisdiction in relation to that decision, which is a refusal to remove the condition that the applicant is prohibited from practising in hospital settings.

What principles are relevant to an extension of time?

Section 33(3) of the QCAT Act provides that an application for the review of a reviewable decision must be made within 28 days after the relevant day, being the day the applicant is notified of the decision.[25]
[25]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 33(4)(a) (‘QCAT Act’).
As the Decision the applicant seeks to review was made on 13 September 2023 (and communicated by letter dated 19 September 2023 and sent by email) the applicant has filed his application to review it approximately 11 months out of time. As the original application was filed out of time, it cannot proceed unless the Tribunal determines to extend time.
Section 61(1)(a) of the QCAT Act provides the Tribunal may, by order, extend a time limit fixed for the start of a proceeding by the QCAT Act or any other Act.
Section 61(2) of the QCAT Act provides that such an extension may be given even if the time for complying with the relevant requirement has passed.
Section 61(3) of the QCAT Act provides relevantly:
The tribunal cannot extend or shorten a time limit or waive compliance with another procedural requirement if to do so would cause prejudice or detriment, not able to be remedied by an appropriate order for costs or damages, to a party or potential party to a proceeding.
The Tribunal should consider in deciding whether to allow a request for an extension of time to file an application for leave to extend time for a review application as follows:[26]
(a)the duration of the delay;
(b)whether there is a satisfactory explanation for the delay;
(c)the merits of the application and its prospects of success;
(d)the likelihood of any prejudice to other parties or potential parties; and
(e)whether the extension of time is in the interests of justice.
[26]Reeve v Hamlyn [2015] QCATA 133 [36]. This case deals with leave to extend time to appeal but the applicable principles are the same.
The Board submits, in summary, that:
(a)While the psychiatrist’s letters are capable of explaining and supporting the applicant in obtaining an extension of time, the medical evidence filed by the applicant identifies that by no later than 7 May 2024, the applicant was in remission of any acute episode of mental illness and no evidence is proffered in support of the delay between May 2024 and 24 September 2024, being the date the applicant filed in the Tribunal his application for review. In oral submissions made today, arising from the applicant’s affidavit of 1 April 2025, the Board submitted further that: the medical material should not be accepted as explaining the delay. This is because there is evidence from the applicant to suggest that he had, in January 2024, been receiving communications about a review of the decision of the MCNSW to suspend his registration, thereby calling into question that he was, in fact, medically unable to file or agitate applications for review;
(b)The applicant’s evidence that he was engaged in education programs in 2023 and that, as a consequence of the decision by the MCNSW to suspend his registration, he suffered financial hardship is not capable of warranting an extension of time. In that regard I note that the applicant appears for himself in the Tribunal and has done so historically;
(c)The Board would be exposed to prejudice if the time was extended. There are several reasons for this:
(i)      A delegate of Ahpra decided on 18 October 2023 that as the applicant’s principal place of practice was in New South Wales, that any change, removal or revocation of conditions on the applicant’s registration should be decided by the MCNSW;
(ii)      Between 18 October 2023 and 7 November 2023, there was the opportunity for the applicant to lodge an application to revoke conditions with the MCNSW but he did not do so;
(iii) On 7 November 2023, the MCNSW suspended the applicant’s registration as a medical practitioner. Under s 207 of the National Law, if a person’s registration as a health practitioner is suspended, the person is taken to be not registered under the National Law for purposes other than purposes related to Part 8 of the National Law. The effect of this is that, as the s 125 process provisions sit in Part 7 of the National Law, the applicant is not taken to be a registered practitioner in respect of them and, consequently, any regulatory body loses powers it otherwise has under the statute to do things it could do in response to such applications;
(iv)     If the applicant’s registration was not suspended, he could make an application to the MCNSW to change, remove or revoke conditions and, if it was unfavourable, he could seek review of that decision in New South Wales in a manner which would not require exercise of a discretion to extend time;
(v)      The appropriate time for any review of the conditions on the applicant’s registration is when the applicant is returned to the register of registered practitioners.
The applicant filed an affidavit affirmed on 31 March 2025 which has the title “Submissions against summary dismissal”. It is very difficult to understand much of what he presses. Doing the best I can, in terms of relevant matters, he made the following submissions:
(a)The education conditions which were imposed on him did not comply with the requirements of s 178(2)(a) of the National Law because they lacked a specified period for their completion. That argument fails on the face of condition 2 which provides: “The education must consist of a minimum number of 8 hours completed over a three month period”.[27] Any arguments that the conditions are against the National Law would seem doomed to fail on that basis;
(b)He impugns the integrity of the judicial member who heard the review from the decision to impose the education conditions. He advances not one scintilla of evidence in doing so. The submission as put is entirely without foundation and scandalous. I will say no more than that of it, noting the principles at [4] – [7] in the cases set out in the Board’s note in response to the applicant’s affidavit dated 31 March 2025;
(c)That the presence of the education conditions on the National Register somehow influenced the MCNSW’s decision to suspend his registration. The reasons for the MCNSW’s decision are not in evidence, however the letter advising of the suspension order is.[28] It indicates that the MCNSW acted pursuant to s 150 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW). It says no more about the reasons for the decision than that it was “satisfied it is appropriate to do so for the protection of the health or safety of any person or persons (whether or not a particular person or persons) or if satisfied the action is otherwise in the public interest”. It appears, however, from the applicant’s email log that he may have received written reasons for the MCNSW’s decision on 20 December 2023.[29] The applicant explains in his review application on page 6 of exhibit 1 that the MCNSW took the action on the grounds of public interest evoked by the language used in one of his direct confidential communications with the regulator, dated 6 July 2023. It would seem, therefore, on the information presently before the Tribunal, that the education conditions have not had any influence on the decision taken by the MCNSW;
(d)Insofar as the applicant is challenging a failure of the Board to review a reflective practice report, I have already set out that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction because this is not an appellable decision. In case I am wrong about that, there are some factual matters that should be put on the record. The difficulty is that the applicant provided that report dated 18 April 2023, some 5 months before education programmes were approved for two of the three required areas of education. Condition 6 of the conditions requires that the report is provided within 21 days after the completion of the education. The reflective practice report does not comply with this condition as it is dated and provided months before the education is approved. Even if I am wrong in determining that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review this, I find the argument fails because the reflective practice report cannot be a document which complies with the condition when it was first filed. Insofar as a further copy of it was resubmitted on 29 October 2023 (as the applicant submitted in the directions hearing on 25 March 2025),[30] the decision had already been made to transfer the monitoring of the conditions to the MCNSW, so it came too late;
(e)The applicant submits, without evidence, that the decision to transfer the monitoring of the conditions did not occur. Documents provided by the Board demonstrate the transfer decision was taken, it was emailed to the MCNSW shortly after that and the MCNSW accepted the transfer, which was communicated on 1 December 2023 to the relevant Ahpra personnel;[31]
(f)Insofar as the practitioner makes allegations that Ahpra personnel ‘faked documents’ or ‘cooked up a story’ there is, again, not one scintilla of evidence to support such an allegation. The submission as put is entirely without foundation and scandalous. Again, I will say no more than that of it and again I will note the principles at [4] – [7] in the cases set out in the Board’s note in response to the applicant’s affidavit dated 31 March 2025;
(g)Insofar as the applicant says that in fact he can pursue questions of error of law in the Supreme Court, and that is a preferable venue for pursuing those questions, which is set out at pages 41 to 43 of exhibit 1, that seems to suggest that this proceeding rises to a level of abuse of process, because he is seeking to press in these proceedings matters he is pressing elsewhere.
[27]Baird Affidavit (n 3) LB3.
[28]Ibid LB8.
[29]Affidavit of the applicant affirmed 1 April 2025.
[30]Transcript of Directions Hearing 25 March 2025 1-13 [29]-[34].
[31]Emails at pp 203-205 of Exhibit 1.
The Tribunal, having considered all this information, considers that a delay of approximately 11 months in the applicant making his application for review is a significant delay. The Tribunal considers that the first 7 months of that delay is somewhat explained by the psychiatrist’s letters. However, it notes that the applicant was apparently able to file other review proceedings as early as December 2023, which would suggest some challenge to the psychiatrist’s opinion. There is no explanation for the delay of 4 months after May 2024, which is when the last psychiatrist’s letter addresses medical issues.
The Tribunal considers that the merits and prospects of success of the applicant’s application for review of the refusal to remove a condition decision (being the only appellable decision) are potentially adversely compromised by the evidence that the Board has opened an own motion notification to assess whether the applicant has engaged in conduct that accords with the standards of professional practice relating to registered medical practitioners in Australia. The Tribunal further considers that the language and tenor of the applicant’s reflective practice report raises serious questions about the applicant’s understanding of and insight into his performance and conduct as a registered medical practitioner (as he then was), such as to potentially further adversely compromise the merits and prospects of success of his application for review.
Some phrases from the first page give a clue to the tenor referred to: “I could not have a logical conversation with my primary supervisor as she was a dumb old lady, whose knowledge had depreciated and become obsolete”; “it was very clear [my primary supervisor] was totally out of depth, as she used to stare into thin air, dumbfounded, without offering any advice when consulted”; and “Working under these two supervisors was a painful and ridiculous exercise; it was such a curse”. This would also appear to reflect the concerns that the MCNSW had when it acted to suspend registration on 7 November 2023, in the circumstances I have already outlined.
Given the matters I have set out about the long delay, a substantial part of which is unexplained delay and some of which is only partially explained, the Tribunal‘s concerns about the merits of the proceeding and its prospects of success and the prejudice the Board would suffer (in the arguments I accept, which have already been outlined) if it had to continue to defend the proceeding, the Tribunal considers that it is prejudicial and not in the interests of justice to the Board if it was forced to continue to respond to these proceedings.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that an extension of time is in the interests of justice to the applicant. The Tribunal considers that the issue of any conditions on the applicant’s registration will be revived for consideration should his registration be reinstated by the MCNSW, and at that point, the applicant may exercise his rights under s 125 of the National Law if he chooses. This would enable him to bring a review application engaging the current monitoring body, and without the procedural hurdles associated with the out of time issues.
The Tribunal dismisses the applicant’s application of 19 March 2025. The Tribunal will not make an order under s 61(1) of the QCAT Act for an extension of time for the filing of the applicant’s application for review.
Should the Tribunal dismiss the proceeding?
The Tribunal has as its objects to deal with matters before it in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick.[32] Its statutory functions include that it must ensure proceedings are conducted in an informal way that minimises costs to parties and is as quick as it is consistent with achieving justice.[33]
[32]QCAT Act (n 25) s 3(b).
[33]Ibid s 4.
Section 47 of the QCAT Act provides relevantly:
(1)    … if the tribunal considers a proceeding or part of a proceeding is—
(a)   frivolous, vexatious or misconceived; or
(b)   lacking in substance; or
(c)   otherwise an abuse of process.
(2)    The tribunal may—(a) if the party who brought the proceeding or part before the tribunal is the applicant for the proceeding, order the proceeding or part be dismissed or struck out; …
The Board submits that the Tribunal’s power under s 47 must meet a high threshold before it is exercised and ought not be exercised unless it is clear that there is no real question to be tried and that the proceeding is obviously hopeless, or obviously unsustainable in fact or law. The Tribunal accepts that is a proper submission of the applicable principles.
The Tribunal finds that, for the reasons already rehearsed, where the Tribunal has determined not to extend time to file the review proceeding, there is no real question to be tried before the Tribunal and that the high threshold required by s 47 has been met. The effect of the suspension of the applicant’s registration is that consideration of the issue of any conditions on registration has been deferred to such time as the MCNSW may decide to reinstate the applicant’s registration. At that point, the applicant may exercise his rights under s 125 of the National Law if he chooses.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s right to a fair hearing under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and is satisfied that the process has offered the applicant a right to a fair hearing and that that right has not been limited.
The Tribunal will make an order that, pursuant to s 47(2)(a) of the QCAT Act, the proceeding is dismissed.
The Tribunal will make an order that paragraphs 15, 47, 48 and 49 of each copy of the affidavit of the applicant affirmed 31 March 2025 on the Tribunal’s file be redacted and the original affidavit be placed in a sealed envelope and marked “not to be opened without order of the Tribunal”.
At the end of the giving of these reasons, the Board sought orders releasing the parties from the implied undertaking enabling both it and the applicant to use the affidavits of the applicant dated 31 March 2025 and 1 April 2025 in other proceedings commenced by the applicant in relation to his status as a registered medical practitioner. The applicant agreed to such an order.
The Tribunal orders that the parties are granted leave to use and rely on the affidavits of the applicant dated 31 May 2025 and 1 April 2025 in proceedings in other courts and tribunals and in proceedings involving the MCNSW.
The Board has liberty to apply within 28 days for any application under section 102 of the QCAT Act.

Non-publication order

This section of these reasons is an action on the initiative of the Tribunal pursuant to s 66(3) of the QCAT Act. In settling these reasons the Tribunal became aware that neither party had applied for a non-publication order in the proceeding.
As is apparent from these reasons:
(a)the practitioner has been before the Tribunal in earlier matters, which are the subject of non-publication orders; and
(b)these reasons deal further with information which is of a confidential nature concerning the applicant’s mental health conditions.
To ensure the integrity of the earlier non-publication orders and to avoid the publication of information which is properly confidential information about the practitioner in accordance with section 66(2)(d) and (e) of the QCAT Act the Tribunal will make a non-publication order relating to the practitioner and any patients of the practitioner.
That order will be in terms which are consistent with the order made in OCR048-18 on 25 March 2025.
It will be expressed as ‘until further order’. Either party can then apply if they seek to have the Tribunal make a different order.

[2025] QCAT 104

11 April 2025 (ex tempore)