XD v Johnson - [2002] VSC 329

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 8680 of 2001 and
No. 8681 of 2001

XD	Plaintiff
v
Mr W F Johnson, Dr P D Molloy and Mr P B Hardham (a panel of the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria appointed pursuant to s. 46 of the Medical Practice Act 1994)	First Defendants
Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Bongiorno J.
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 and 9 April 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 August 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	XD v Medical Practitioners Board
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 329	First revision 30 September 2003

---

Administrative law – Judicial review of ruling by a panel of the Medical Practitioners Board- Power of the panel to stay its own hearing for on the ground of abuse of process – Procedural fairness – s.49 s.50 Medical Practice Act 1994

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J.H.L. Forrest, Q.C. with Mr. M. D. Wilson	J. W. Ball & Sons
For the Defendants	Mr M. Dreyfus, Q.C. with Ms J. Dixon	Victorian Government Solicitor

HIS HONOUR:

XD is a medical practitioner registered pursuant to the Medical Practice Act 1994. In about May 2001, he was served with a draft[1] of a Notice of Formal Hearing into his professional conduct pursuant to s. 46 of the Act. The notice foreshadowed allegations of impropriety against XD in relation to two female patients, Ms A and Ms B. The allegations against XD in respect of Ms A involved conduct which is alleged to have occurred between 1 July 1978 and 31 December 1981. The impropriety with Ms B is alleged to have occurred on or about 11 June 1993.
[1]Although the notice was entitled "Draft Notice of Formal Hearing", all parties to this litigation agree that it constituted, for present purposes at least, notice of a formal hearing as required by s. 48 Medical Practice Act 1994.

On 27 July, 6 August and 13 August 2001, a panel of the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria ("the Panel"), appointed by the Board pursuant to s. 46 of the Act, heard submissions from XD's counsel on an application to stay the hearing of the allegations in respect of Ms A contained in paragraphs A(1), (2) and (3) of the draft notice. That application required the acceptance by the Panel of a preliminary submission to the effect that it had jurisdiction to consider and determine whether the reference to it by the Board of some of the allegations against XD by Ms A was an abuse of process, entitling XD to have the formal hearing into those allegations permanently stayed. XD's case as to those allegations giving rise to an abuse of process relate to the age of the alleged events giving rise to the charges and their vagueness.

On 23 October 2001, the Panel ruled on XD's preliminary submission, as well as on an application to sever the allegations made by…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read XD v Johnson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] VSC 329
Decision Date: 14 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved XD, a medical practitioner, and the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria, represented by Johnson, seeking judicial review of a ruling by a panel of the board. The panel had stayed its own hearing on the basis that XD had abused the process. The central dispute centred on whether the panel had the power to stay its own proceedings and whether procedural fairness had been upheld during the decision-making process. XD argued that the panel's decision to stay the proceedings was beyond its powers and that the process was unfair. Johnson, on the other hand, contended that the panel's decision was justified and within its authority, and that procedural fairness had been observed.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the panel had the inherent power to stay its own proceedings on the ground of abuse of process and whether the decision to stay the proceedings was procedurally fair. The court was required to examine the relevant statutory provisions, particularly sections 49 and 50 of the Medical Practice Act 1994, to determine the scope of the panel's powers and the requirements for procedural fairness. The court also had to consider whether the panel's decision to stay the proceedings was an abuse of process and whether XD was afforded an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations.

The court found that the panel did have the inherent power to stay its own proceedings if it was necessary to prevent an abuse of process. However, the court determined that the panel had not exercised this power correctly, as it had not given XD a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations of abuse of process. The court held that the panel's decision to stay the proceedings was flawed due to procedural unfairness. As a result, the court quashed the panel's decision and remitted the matter back to the board for reconsideration. The court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness in administrative decision-making and highlighted the need for a proper process to be followed when exercising inherent powers.

In conclusion, the court quashed the panel's decision to stay the proceedings and remitted the matter back to the board for reconsideration. The court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness and the need for a proper process to be followed when exercising inherent powers. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that administrative bodies adhere to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in their decision-making processes.

Orders