Z v A Professional Conduct Committee - [2025] NZHC 745

NOTE: ORDER SUPPRESSING NAME AND PARTICULARS OF IDENTITY OF APPELLANT CONTINUES IN FORCE. NAMES AND IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS SUPPRESSED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-000048

[2025] NZHC 745

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal pursuant to s 106(2) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003

BETWEEN

“Z”

Appellant

AND

A Professional Conduct Committee Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

A Waalkens KC and S Courtney for the Appellant J Coates and C Robinson for the Respondent

Judgment:

1 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

[Name suppression]

This judgment was delivered by me on 01 April 2025 at 3 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

A Waalkens KC, Barrister, Wotton + Kearney (Auckland) J Coates, Dentons Kensington Swan

[Z] v A Professional Conduct Committee [2025] NZHC 745 [1 April 2025]

[1] In a judgment dated 30 January 2025, I allowed the appeal by Z against the decision of the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal’s (the Tribunal) finding of professional misconduct.1

[2] The Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) has applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The remedy sought by the PCC includes an order confirming the Tribunal’s finding and an order remitting the matter back to the High Court for consideration of penalty and Z’s application for permanent name suppression.

[3]In respect of name suppression, the judgment stated:

Name suppression

[164] The complexion around name suppression is clearly altered by this judgment. In view of the outcome of the substantive appeal, my provisional view is that it is desirable that an order for permanent name suppression be granted. However, I am conscious that the submissions on name suppression were directed to the position should the appeal not in fact succeed or succeed only in part. For that reason, I continue the existing interim name suppression and invite both parties to file further written submissions in accordance with the following timetable…

[4] The parties conferred in light of the application for leave to appeal and reached a consent position that a permanent order for name suppression can be made expressly subject to the following two points:

(a)In the event that the PCC’s appeal is successful, Z will not take the position that the High Court has no ability or jurisdiction to consider the question of name suppression because of the existence of this permanent order.

(b)The PCC’s consent to the permanent name suppression order is entirely without prejudice to the PCC’s position on name suppression in the event the PCC’s appeal is successful.

[5] I apprehend that the effect of this is that the parties agree that there should be permanent name suppression at this time, but the question of suppression can be

1 Z v PCC [2025] NZHC 35.

reopened in the event the PCC’s appeal is successful because that will amount to a change in circumstances.

[6] Although the parties have reached a consent position, it is for…

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 Z v A Professional Conduct Committee 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: [2025] NZHC 745
Decision Date: 1 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Z, an appellant, contested a decision of the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) that found them guilty of professional misconduct. The Tribunal's decision was appealed to the High Court by the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC), and subsequently, Z appealed the High Court's decision to the Court of Appeal. The primary focus of this judgment is the issue of name suppression, particularly whether Z's name and identifying details should be permanently suppressed.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the appellant's name should be permanently suppressed. The Court had to balance the principle of open justice against the potential harm to the appellant's reputation and professional future. Given that the Tribunal's finding of misconduct had been quashed, the Court had to consider whether there were still compelling reasons to maintain name suppression. The Court also had to consider the consent reached by the parties and whether it was appropriate for the Court to make a final determination on the suppression order.

The Court, after reviewing the relevant statutory provisions and the competing interests, concluded that this was a proper case for permanent name suppression. The Court noted that the threshold for ordering name suppression in disciplinary proceedings involving health practitioners is lower than in other contexts. The Court accepted that transparency and accountability are important but recognised that these must be balanced against the potential harm to the appellant's professional reputation. The Court found that allowing publication of Z's name would be punitive and detrimental to their ability to work, particularly since the finding of misconduct had been quashed. Consequently, the Court agreed with the parties' consent that a permanent name suppression order should be made, subject to specific conditions.

The final orders of the Court included a permanent suppression of Z's name and identifying details, subject to the conditions that if the PCC's appeal is successful, Z would not argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider name suppression, and the PCC's consent to the suppression order would not prejudice their position if the appeal is successful. This ensures that the question of name suppression can be revisited should the PCC's appeal be successful, reflecting a change in circumstances.

Orders