Health Care Complaints Commission v Al Hamid [2026] NSWCATOD 41;

1. The Commission seeks alternative protective orders under s 149A (caution, reprimand or counselling), s 149B (fine) or s 149C (suspension) of the National Law (NSW) in the event that only some of the particulars of the amended complaint are proven.
2. The Commission also requests a direction that the name and address of the witnesses listed in the schedule to the Complaint attached to the amended application not be disclosed under cl 7 of Sch 5D of the National Law (NSW), or an order prohibiting the disclosure of the name of the person listed in the Schedule to the attached complaint under s64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act).
3. We must first determine whether the complaints against the practitioner in the amended application have been proven (Stage 1) and, if so, what orders, if any, should be made (Stage 2). The Commission bears the onus of proof of the complaints. It is well established that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is on the balance of probabilities with a sufficient degree of certainty having regard to the seriousness of the allegations made, such that the Tribunal must be comfortably satisfied about the allegations made (the Briginshaw test): Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, [1938] HCA 34; Gautam v Health Care Complaints Commission [2021] NSWCA 85.
4. We have decided to make the orders cancelling the practitioner's registration with a non-review period of 12 months. We are satisfied that the complaints particularised in the amended application are established, that the practitioner is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and that this conduct is sufficiently serious to amount to professional misconduct by the practitioner. We have made an order for a non-review period for 12 months. We have also ordered that the practitioner is prohibited from providing any health service until the Tribunal makes a reinstatement order. We have ordered that the practitioner pay the Commission's costs, as agreed or assessed, under cl 13 of Sch 5D of the National Law (NSW). A direction has also been made for non-disclosure under cl 7 of Sch 5D of the National Law (NSW). Our reasons follow.

1. The following are the background facts leading to the decision made by the Podiatry Council on 2 February 2024 to suspend the practitioner and the subsequent investigation by the Commission, resulting in this application to the Tribunal made on 1 April 2025. These background facts are not in dispute.
2. The practitioner obtained a Bachelor of Podiatric Medicine from Western Sydney University in 2018 and was first registered as a podiatrist in June 2019. He was self-employed from 2021 and provided podiatry services as a sub-subcontractor at multiple medical centres across Sydney and in regional areas of NSW.
3. During 2021, the practitioner submitted 89 applications to EnableNSW for payments for orthotics. EnableNSW is a state funding body for assistive technology, including footwear, for people with chronic health conditions.
4. In August 2021, EnableNSW engaged RSM Australia Pty Limited (RSM) to undertake a forensic investigation to identify any impropriety and to provide factual findings to EnableNSW. On 16 September 2021 the practitioner attended an interview with RSM. He acknowledged that there were delays between his consultations and submitting applications but otherwise denied wrongdoing. RSM prepared a report dated 7 February 2022 stating that RSM had investigated the anomalies identified by EnableNSW and had identified additional anomalies, with a potential of $143,345 of suspect applications. RSM concluded:

"However, we have insufficient evidence to support or prove either impropriety or a relevant criminal offence to the standard required of beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the evidence suggests that these anomalies were not caused due to dishonest or improper behaviour but were a result of processing control deficiencies which are the subject of recommendations for continuous improvement by RSM in this report for EnableNSW."

1. On 17 February 2022, EnableNSW submitted a complaint which was then provided to the Podiatry Council of NSW (Podiatry Council). The Podiatry Council is one of the Councils established under s 41B of the National Law (NSW). The Podiatry Council manages complaints about the conduct, performance, and health of registered podiatrists and students in New South Wales, and the members of the Council are nominated by the NSW Minister for Health.
2. According to the complaint, a review of all applications submitted by the practitioner uncovered a high level of anomalies. Every application was typed, the practitioner was listed as the sole contact, the applicant agreement was not signed, and the practitioner submitted a very high number of funding requests in a short period of time.
3. On 14 March 2022, the practitioner provided a response to the Podiatry Council about the EnableNSW complaint, acknowledging mistakes had been made with the applications.
4. After the RSM investigation and the referral of the complaint to the Podiatry Council, EnableNSW undertook further investigations and prepared a report summarising the outcome of its investigations dated 22 April 2022. It is unclear from the material whether this report was referred to the Podiatry Council.
5. Representatives from the Podiatry Council interviewed the practitioner on 7 October 2022 in relation to the complaint. It was noted that the practitioner did not provide his learning plan and continuing professional development (CPD) log for the previous 24 months, a current curriculum vitae, and outstanding patient records relating to the complaint.
6. The practitioner was referred for an independent performance assessment by the Podiatry Council. At the time of the referral, the practitioner was required to comply with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority (AHPRA) Code of Conduct (effective from June 2022) and the Professional capabilities for podiatrists standards developed and approved by the Podiatry Council effective from 1 January 2022. The assessors appointed by the Podiatry Council then undertook the assessment over two stages, the first on 23 May 2023 and the second on 8 June 2023. The practitioner was interviewed by the independent assessors on each occasion.
7. On 20 June 2023, the assessors provided a final performance assessment report which concluded that the practitioner was not competent in six of the areas of competency assessed, being: professional code of conduct, patient assessment and care planning, critical thinking and decision-making, documentation, duty of care, and infection control practices. In relation to the competency of maintaining practitioner health and well-being, the assessors stated that there was an "acceptable level of practitioner healthcare both physically and mentally" but concerns remained and it was recommended that a further assessment was required.
8. The assessors found that the practitioner had been practising as a sole practitioner since his graduation and he was lacking an awareness of the scope of podiatry within the broader health profession. The assessors observed that this isolation appeared to have contributed to a lack of clinical reasoning skills and treatment modalities. It is further stated:

"The assessors believe that the professional performance of Mr. Al Hamid does not meet the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner with an equivalent level of training and experience according to the Podiatry Board of Australia's Professional Capabilities for Podiatrist in all 5 domains.

The assessors believe that the practitioner is practising at such an unsatisfactory level that he poses a significant risk to the general public."

1. The assessors recommended that the practitioner cease practising as a sole practitioner and concluded that he required specific patient case related supervision and mentoring, covering all aspects of podiatry, particularly patient assessment and care planning, critical thinking and decision making, documentation, duty of care, and infection control practises. It was noted that within the profession of podiatry there is an expectation that practitioners will have their professional development needs met through education programmes and a commitment to the CPD program. The assessors concluded that the applicant required close ongoing peer mentoring.
2. Following this report, delegates of the Podiatry Council conducted a hearing under s 150 of the National Law (NSW) on 23 June 2023. The practitioner gave evidence.
3. At the end of the hearing, the Podiatry Council imposed conditions under s 150 of the National Law (NSW) and the practitioner was told about the effect of the conditions. The following conditions were recorded on the practitioner's registration:

"Conditions imposed following Section 150 Hearing, effective from 23 June 2023:

Public conditions

1. To notify the Podiatry Council of NSW in writing at least seven (7) days prior to changing the nature or place of practice.

2. To practise under Category A supervision in accordance with the Podiatry Council of NSW's Compliance Policy- Supervision (as varied from time to time) and as subsequently determined by the appropriate review body.

a) At each fortnightly meeting the practitioner is to review and discuss his practice with his approved supervisor with particular focus on:

i. Patient assessment, clinical interpretation, and further diagnostics required to develop short- and long-term management planning

ii. Applying theoretical knowledge to clinical presentations to determine possible diagnoses and determining clinical risk.

iii. Clinical record keeping

iv. Duty of Care, including appropriate referral pathways.

v. Infection control practices

b) To authorise the approved supervisor to provide written reports to the Council at three monthly intervals, or as specified by the Council. The supervisor's report is to cover the issues outlined in 2a(i-v).

3. Not to practise until a supervisor has been approved by the Podiatry Council of NSW.

4. The practitioner is responsible for the costs associated with complying with the conditions unless otherwise specified."

1. The practitioner provided his signed acceptance of the conditions to the Podiatry Council on 27 June 2023.
2. The practitioner's registration was subject to the above conditions from 23 June 2023. The conditions were varied on 26 September 2023 but the substance of these conditions in relation to limitation on the practitioner's practice remained until his registration was suspended on 2 February 2024. In summary, the practitioner was subject to a condition that he practise under Category A supervision in accordance with the Podiatry Council of NSW's Compliance Policy-Supervision (condition 2) and was ordered not to practise until a supervisor had been approved by the Podiatry Council (condition 3).
3. On 11 July 2023, the Podiatry Council provided the practitioner with its written reasons for the orders made on 23 June 2023. The above orders were set out in the written reasons. The practitioner was advised that he had the right to appeal the decision to this Tribunal within 28 days after the notice of the reasons. He was also advised that he had the right to seek a review of the decision by the Podiatry Council under s 150A of the National Law (NSW). The practitioner did not appeal this decision to the Tribunal, nor did he seek a review of the decision by the Council.
4. The Commission alleges that from 23 June 2023 to 19 July 2023, the practitioner billed podiatry health services for 58 patients. At the time the practitioner provided these podiatry health services, he was not supervised under Category A supervision, or at all, and did not have a supervisor who had been approved by the Council.
5. On 12 July 2023, the practitioner provided a submission to the Podiatry Council stating that he was currently working two days a week as a sole practitioner and requested his supervision to be lowered from Category A to Category B. By email dated 18 July 2023, the Podiatry Council notified the practitioner that he was in breach of Condition 3 and requested an explanation. It is alleged that the practitioner stated during a telephone call on July 2023 with a monitoring officer that he was not currently practising in podiatry. Following this conversation, the practitioner sent an email to the Podiatry Council to the following effect:

"Thank you for your email, as discussed in our earlier phone conversation I would like to formally state the following:

There is a form of miscommunication when I stated my working conditions, I am NOT PRACTISING in any practice as this condition has been imposed on me, in my response when I stated 'I am currently working two days a week' this is referring to my work schedule prior to the conditions imposed, I requested if it is possible to continue my normal work schedule in addition to the assistance of the supervisor."

1. Following this telephone conversation and email on 20 July 2023, the practitioner billed podiatry health services for 52 patients in the period 20 July 2023 to 16 August 2023.
2. It is alleged by the Commission on 16 August 2023 that the practitioner had a telephone conversation with a monitoring officer in which he stated that he had not been able to work since the imposition of the condition on his registration due to the difficulties in finding appropriate supervision.
3. Despite this, there is clear evidence from Medicare data that the practitioner billed podiatry health services for 39 patients from 16 August 2023 to 11 September 2023.
4. On 11 September 2023, the practitioner attended an interview with a Performance Review Panel which was convened by the Podiatry Council. The practitioner told the Performance Review Panel that he had not been able to work as a podiatrist since the conditions were imposed on his registration as no one was prepared to employ him while he required Category A supervision. This is also recorded in the report of the Performance Review Panel dated 26 September 2023.
5. The report recorded concerns by the Panel about the practitioner's competencies in key areas and raised issues about whether the courses undertaken by the practitioner addressed or were likely to address the underlying concerns. It was further noted that the practitioner had provided no evidence of his CPD activities nor reflections on how they would improve or relate to his practise. It was recommended that the practitioner undertake further CPD. The Panel concluded that Category B supervision was not appropriate as this would neither provide direct oversight of the practitioner's practice to ensure it is safe nor the ability of his supervisor to provide real time guidance or correction of technique in a timely manner.
6. In summary, the Performance Review Panel concluded that the practitioner's professional performance was unsatisfactory and that his practice posed a risk to the health and safety of the public. The Panel recommended that conditions be imposed on the practitioner's registration with effect from the date of the decision. The conditions, which were set out in the report of the Performance Review Panel, were as follows:

"1. To notify the Podiatry Council of NSW in writing at least seven (7) days prior to changing the nature or place of practice.

2. To practise under Category A supervision in accordance with the Podiatry Council of NSW's Compliance Policy - Supervision (as varied from time to time) and as subsequently determined by the appropriate review body.

a) At each fortnightly meeting the practitioner is to review and discuss his practice with his approved supervisor with particular focus on:

i. Patient assessment, clinical interpretation, and further diagnostics required to develop short and long term management planning

ii. Applying theoretical knowledge to clinical presentations to determine possible diagnoses and determining clinical risk.

iii. Clinical record keeping

iv. Duty of Care, including appropriate referral pathways.

v. Infection control practices

vi. CPD including planning and documentation

b) To authorise the approved supervisor to provide written reports to the Council at three monthly intervals, or as specified by the Council. The supervisor's report is to cover the issues outlined in 2a(i-vi).

3. Not to practise until a supervisor has been approved by the Podiatry Council of NSW.

4. To satisfactorily complete education approved by the Podiatry Council of NSW and that has the following characteristics:

i. content or learning objectives: Assessment and management of diabetes in podiatry

ii. course duration: minimum of 6 hours

iii. course must have an assessment component

(a) Within two (2) months of the imposition of conditions the practitioner must provide evidence to the Council of enrolment in the approved course.

(b) The practitioner must complete the course within six (6) months of the imposition of conditions or otherwise at a date determined by the Council.

(c) Within one (1) month of completing the approved course, the practitioner is to provide documentary evidence of satisfactory completion to the Council.

(d) The practitioner is to bear responsibility for the costs.

5. To satisfactorily complete education approved by the Podiatry Council of NSW and that has the following characteristics:

i. content or learning objectives: Biomechanics in Podiatry

ii. course duration: minimum 2 days (16 hours)

iii. course must have an assessment component

(a) Within two (2) months of the imposition of conditions the practitioner must provide evidence to the Council of enrolment in the approved course.

(b) The practitioner must complete the course within six (6) months of the imposition of conditions or otherwise at a date determined by the Council.

(c) Within one (1) month of completing the approved course, the practitioner is to provide documentary evidence of satisfactory completion to the Council.

(d) The practitioner is to bear responsibility for the costs.

6. To complete a performance assessment by performance assessor/s approved by the Podiatry Council of New South Wales and the costs of this assessment will be met by the Council.

(a) comply with any instructions provided by the Council in relation to the performance assessment.

(b) to be completed within 6 months of the commencement of supervision

7. The practitioner is responsible for the costs associated with complying with the conditions unless otherwise specified.

8. The Podiatry Council of NSW is the appropriate review body for the purposes of Division 8 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW)."

1. In addition, the Performance Review Panel recommended that the following private conditions be imposed on the practitioner:

"1. To provide to the Council his Continuing Professional Development (CPD) records for the 2023 registration period by 31 October 2023.

The CPD records must be in accordance with the Podiatry Board of Australia Registration Standard: Continuing professional development and associated guidelines.

The submitted CPD records must include:

(a) A learning plan for the remainder of the 2023 registration period

(b) A log and evidence of CPD activities undertaken in 2023

(c) A satisfactory standard of reflections on how the CPD activities will enhance and improve the practitioner's practice.

2. To submit Continuing Professional Development Plan for the 2024 registration period by 31 October 2023.

The learning plan is to address deficits in the practitioner's knowledge / skill identified in the decision of the Performance Review Panel (PRP) dated 31 October 2023.

3. To submit current CPR & management of anaphylaxis and use of an automated external defibrillator (AED) training certificate by 31 October 2023.

4. To submit evidence of Professional Indemnity Insurance for the 2023 period by 31 October 2023."

1. These additional provisions were also set out in the report of the Performance Review Panel dated 26 September 2023. This report was provided to the practitioner on or about 26 September 2023.
2. By letter dated 3 October 2023, the practitioner was advised that conditions were imposed on his registration effective from 26 September 2023. The conditions, which included the public and private conditions set out in the Performance Review Panel report, were notified to the practitioner in an attachment to the letter. The letter stated that the practitioner should review the conditions imposed on his registration and return the completed form and other associated documents by 10 October 2023, which included details of his continuing professional development records and continuing professional development plans for the 2024 registration.
3. The varied conditions required the practitioner to complete certain education courses as specified in the conditions and to provide to the Podiatry Council evidence about enrolment and compliance within a specified period. The private conditions required that the practitioner submit to the Podiatry Council his CPD records and his CPD plan for 2024.
4. On 3 November 2023, the practitioner provided the Podiatry Council with his signed conditions indicating acceptance, signed employment declaration form and a completed notice of conditions with a nominated supervisor. However, he did not provide by 31 October 2023 (as required by the private conditions 1 to 4 imposed on 26 September 2024) the CPD records identified, the training certificates for CPR, management of anaphylaxis and use of an automated external defibrillator and evidence of professional development insurance for 2023.
5. By email dated 23 November 2023, the Podiatry Council reminded the practitioner about the documents that were yet to be provided in relation to his education and CPD.
6. While the practitioner had nominated a supervisor, the Podiatry Council requested further information about the nominated supervisor and the proposed supervision on 9 January 2024. No supervisor was approved.
7. By email dated 12 January 2024, the Podiatry Council attached Medicare data which indicated that the practitioner had practised without a Council approved supervisor from 23 June 2023 to 20 October 2023. The Podiatry Council requested a response by 17 January 2024. On 17 January 2024, the Podiatry Council sent a further email to the practitioner, again attaching Medicare data, which indicated that the practitioner had practised without a Council approved supervisor on further dates between 20 October 2023 and 15 January 2024.
8. On 17 January 2024, the practitioner was telephoned by a monitoring officer from the Podiatry Council, and he reportedly said that due to a "miscommunication", he was unaware that he had to cease practise until a Category A supervisor was approved. This representation was also made in an email of the same date where the practitioner said, "I am grateful that you have explained to me exactly my limitations and conditions imposed upon me, as I explained to you there seems to be a form of miscommunication, however I'm now fully aware of my responsibilities and duties thanks to your clarification."
9. On 18 January 2024, the practitioner was again telephoned by a monitoring officer and had a similar conversation. He then sent an email to the Podiatry Council:

"As I've explained to you it has come to my attention that there seems to be a form of miscommunication as to what restrictions are imposed in my scope of practise, however I am now fully aware of my responsibilities and duties thanks to your clarification. I can confirm I will be following your advice and not practising until a confirmed supervisor is approved by the council."

1. Despite these emails and various telephone communication, there is evidence from Medicare data that the practitioner billed podiatry health services for 176 patients from 11 September 2023 up to and including 11 January 2024.
2. On 1 February 2024, the Podiatry Council convened a second hearing under s 150 of the National Law (NSW). The practitioner gave evidence at the hearing and prior to the hearing, he was provided with relevant documents including Medicare data. Following the hearing, the Podiatry Council suspended the practitioner's registration effective from 2 February 2024. On 14 March 2024, the Podiatry Council provided to the practitioner a decision outlining the reasons for the suspension.
3. The Podiatry Council referred the matter to the Commission and by letter dated 22 March 2024, the Commission notified the practitioner that it had commenced an investigation. Thereafter, there was correspondence between the Commission and the practitioner in relation to the investigation, information requested by the Commission and information provided by the practitioner in response to the various requests. By letter dated 20 October 2024, the Commission invited the practitioner to provide submissions. The letter stated that the Commission was at the end of its investigation and that the evidence indicated the practitioner had practised in contravention of conditions on his registration. The letter included particulars of the Commission's findings. The practitioner was advised that the Commission was proposing to refer the matter to the Director of Proceedings under s 39(1)(a) of the HCC Act for determination as to whether to prosecute a complaint before a professional disciplinary body. The practitioner was given 28 days to respond. The practitioner did not provide any submissions.
4. On 26 September 2024, the practitioner requested a review of his suspension and provided further information to the Podiatry Council relating to his 2023 and 2024 CPD, including an email to a potential supervisor. The Podiatry Council undertook a review under s 150A of the National Law (NSW) and conducted a hearing on 24 January 2025 (the January 2025 s 150A proceedings). The practitioner participated by video conference. The delegates of the Podiatry Council considered the evidence but confirmed the suspension and provided written reasons for this decision dated 26 February 2025.
5. The practitioner made a further application under s 150A for a review of the decision, which was considered on 17 April 2025 with written reasons dated 11 June 2025 (the April 2025 s 150A proceedings). The decision made by the Podiatry Council to suspend the practitioner's registration was affirmed. In essence, the Podiatry Council determined that the additional information provided by the practitioner did not evidence a change of circumstances that would provide sufficient protection to the public and hence justify a change to the suspension of the practitioners registration.
6. The hearing on 12 December 2025 proceeded as a combined Stage 1 and Stage 2 hearing, Stage 1 being about whether the complaints made by the Commission about unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct are established and Stage 2 about what protective orders should be made in the event the Tribunal is satisfied about the matters alleged in Stage 1.
7. After the proceedings were commenced by the Commission, the practitioner engaged in further conduct which the Commission alleges is relevant to the question of what protective orders should be made as part of the Stage 2 considerations. The evidence in relation to this alleged conduct is outlined later in these reasons.
8. The practitioner participated in the hearing. He gave evidence and was cross examined by the Commission. He also made oral submissions at the end of the hearing. The Commission was represented by Ms Bayley, solicitor advocate for the Commission.

1. The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law is a consistent legal framework enacted by each of the Australian States and territories to establish the national registration and accreditation scheme (the National Scheme). There are 15 national boards regulating registered health practitioners in Australia. They are responsible for registering practitioners and students and setting standards that practitioners must meet and managing complaints about the health, conduct or performance of practitioners. The Podiatry Board of Australian is one such board. The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) works in partnership with the national boards to implement the national registration and accreditation scheme.
2. The National Law (NSW), together with the laws enacted in each state and territory, establishes a national registration and accreditation scheme for the regulation of health practitioners and the registration of students undertaking programs of study that provide a qualification for registration in a health profession or clinical training in a health profession. The National Law (NSW) is the law that applies to health practitioners and students in New South Wales.
3. Section 3(2) of the National Law (NSW) sets out the objectives of the national registration and accreditation scheme. Section 3(2)(a) relevantly states that one of objectives of the National Law (NSW) is:

to provide for the protection of the public by ensuring that only health practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practise in a competent and ethical manner are registered;

1. Section 3A of the National Law (NSW) sets out the guiding principles in New South Wales and subs (1) provides that the main guiding principle is that the protection of the health and safety of the public must be the paramount consideration. Section 3B states:

In the exercise of functions under a NSW provision, the protection of the health and safety of the public must be the paramount consideration.

1. Section 39 empowers the national boards to develop and approve codes and guidelines to provide guidance to the health practitioners it registers and about other matters relevant to the exercise of its functions. The national boards, including the Podiatry Board, developed and approved codes of conduct, effective from 1 January 2022, pursuant to s 39 of the National Law (NSW).
2. Part 8 of the National Law (NSW) contains provisions dealing with the health, performance, and conduct of health practitioners.
3. Section 139B(1), which is in Div 1 of Part 8, defines "unsatisfactory professional conduct" of a health practitioner to include conduct significantly below reasonable standard (National Law (NSW), s139B(1)(a)), contravention of the National Law (NSW) or regulations (whether or not the practitioner has been prosecuted for or convicted of an offence in respect of the contravention) (National Law (NSW), s139B(1)(b)), relevant to the facts alleged in this case, contravention of conditions of registration or undertaking (National Law (NSW), s139B(1)(c)) and other improper or unethical conduct (National Law (NSW), s139B(1)(l)).
4. Section 139E of the National Law (NSW) sets out the meaning of "professional misconduct" as follows:

For the purposes of this Law, professional misconduct of a registered health practitioner means -

(a) unsatisfactory professional conduct of a sufficiently serious nature to justify suspension or cancellation of the practitioner's registration; or

(b) more than one instance of unsatisfactory professional conduct that, when the instances are considered together, amount to conduct of a sufficiently serious nature to justify suspension or cancellation of the practitioner's registration.

1. Division 3, Part 8 deals with complaints against a health practitioner. A complaint can be made to a Council or the Commission (National Law (NSW), s 144C). In this case, a complaint about the practitioner was referred to the Commission and by letter dated 22 March 2024, the Commission notified the practitioner that the complaint was being investigated.
2. Sections 149 to 149E of the National Law (NSW), which are contained in Part 8, set out the disciplinary powers of the Tribunal in relation to a registered health practitioner. Section 149 provides that, if a complaint is proved or admitted:

The Tribunal may exercise any power conferred on it by this Subdivision in relation to a registered health practitioner or student if -

(a) it finds the subject-matter of a complaint against the practitioner or student to have been proved; or

(b) the practitioner or student admits to it in writing to the Tribunal.

1. Section 149A(1) sets out the general powers of the Tribunal in relation to a registered health practitioner as follows:

(1) The Tribunal may do any one or more of the following in relation to the registered health practitioner -

(a) caution or reprimand the practitioner;

(b) impose the conditions it considers appropriate on the practitioner's registration;

(c) order the practitioner to seek and undergo medical or psychiatric treatment or counselling (including, but not limited to, psychological counselling);

(d) order the practitioner to complete an educational course specified by the Tribunal;

(e) order the practitioner to report on the practitioner's practice at the times, in the way and to the persons specified by the Tribunal;

(f) order the practitioner to seek and take advice, in relation to the management of the practitioner's practice, from persons specified by the Tribunal.

1. Section 149A(3) provides that if the health practitioner is no longer registered, an order or direction may still be given under this section but has effect only -

(a) to prevent the practitioner being registered unless the order is complied with; or

(b) to require the conditions concerned to be imposed when the practitioner is registered.

1. The Tribunal may fine a registered health practitioner under s 149B of the National Law (NSW) if the registered health practitioner is found by the Tribunal to have been guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct; and it is satisfied there is no other order, or combination of orders, that is appropriate in the public interest.
2. Section 149C sets out the circumstances when the Tribunal may suspend or cancel registration of a registered health practitioner or student as follows:

(1) The Tribunal may suspend a registered health practitioner's registration for a specified period or cancel the registered health practitioner's registration if the Tribunal is satisfied -

(a) the practitioner is not competent to practise the practitioner's profession; or

(b) the practitioner is guilty of professional misconduct; or

(c) the practitioner has been convicted of or made the subject of a criminal finding for an offence, either in or outside this jurisdiction, and the circumstances of the offence render the practitioner unfit in the public interest to practise the practitioner's profession; or

(d) the practitioner is not a suitable person for registration in the practitioner's profession.

(2) The Tribunal may suspend a student's registration for a specified period or cancel the student's registration if the Tribunal is satisfied -

(a) the student has been convicted of or made the subject of a criminal finding for an offence, either in or outside this jurisdiction, and the circumstances of the offence render the student unfit in the public interest to undertake clinical training in the health profession; or

(b) the student is otherwise not a suitable person to undertake clinical training in the health profession.

(3) The Tribunal must cancel a registered health practitioner's or student's registration if the Tribunal is satisfied the practitioner or student has contravened a critical compliance order or condition.

(4) If the person is no longer registered, the Tribunal may -

(a) decide that if the person were still registered the Tribunal would have suspended or cancelled the person's registration; and

(b) if the Tribunal would have cancelled the person's registration, decide that the person is disqualified from being registered in the health profession for a specified period or until specified conditions have been complied with; and

(c) require the National Board with which the person was registered to record the fact that the Tribunal would have suspended or cancelled the person's registration in the National Register kept by the Board.

(4A) If the Tribunal decides under subsection (4)(a) that if the person were still registered the Tribunal would have suspended the person's registration, the person may not apply for registration in the health profession during the period for which the person would have been suspended if registered.

(5) If the Tribunal suspends or cancels a registered health practitioner's or student's registration and it is satisfied the person poses a substantial risk to the health of members of the public, it may by order (a prohibition order) do any one or more of the following -

(a) prohibit the person from providing health services or specified health services for the period specified in the order or permanently;

(b) place specified conditions on the provision of health services or specified health services by the person for the period specified in the order or permanently.

...

(5A) The power of the Tribunal to make a prohibition order under subsection (5) extends to a person who is no longer registered if the Tribunal decides under subsection (4) that it would have suspended or cancelled the person's registration if the person were still registered.

(6) If the Tribunal is aware a registered health practitioner or student in respect of whom it is proposing to make a prohibition order is registered in a health profession other than the health profession in respect of which the Tribunal is making the order, the Tribunal must, before making the prohibition order -

(a) notify the Council and the National Board for that health profession, and the Commission, of the proposed order; and

(b) give the Council, National Board and Commission an opportunity to make a submission.

(7) An order may also provide that an application for review of the order under Division 8 may not be made until after a specified time.

1. Section 149E provides that where a cancellation or disqualification decision has been made by the Tribunal against a person, that person cannot make an application for registration as a health practitioner unless the Tribunal has made a reinstatement order under s 163B of the National Law (NSW).
2. Section 150(1) of the National Law (NSW) states:

(1) A Council must, if at any time it is 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 -

(a) by order suspend a registered health practitioner's or student's registration; or

(b) by order impose on a registered health practitioner's registration the conditions relating to the practitioner's practising the health profession the Council considers appropriate; or

(c) by order impose on a student's registration the conditions the Council considers appropriate.

1. Under s 150(5), a Council may impose a condition requiring the registered health practitioner to undergo a performance assessment. Section 150(6) provides that if a Council takes action under s 150, it must give written notice to the practitioner of the action taken under the section and the reasons for the action. A Council may alter or remove conditions imposed after giving written notice (National Law (NSW), s 150C).
2. Section 150A(1) of the National Law (NSW) provides that a registered health practitioner may apply to the to a Council for a review of the decision of the Council under s 150 to, relevant to the facts of this case, impose conditions on the practitioner's registration. Following its reconsideration of a decision, a Council may affirm or vary the decision or set it aside and take any action the Council has power to take under s 150. The Council may vary or set aside a decision only if the Council is satisfied that there has been a change in the registered health practitioner's circumstances that justifies the variation or setting aside of the decision.
3. Section 150J of the National Law (NSW) sets out the powers of a Council to obtain information, records and evidence. Relevantly, s 150J(1) provides that if, in a Council's opinion a person is capable of giving information, documents or evidence that would assist the Council in making a decision about action taken or proposed to be taken, the Council may by written notice given to the person require the person to give to the Council information, produce to the Council certain documents or appear before the Council (or an authorised member of staff) to give evidence either orally or in writing and to produce documents.

1. AHPRA and the 12 national boards regulating registered health practitioners in Australia published a Code of Conduct in June 2022. The Code was developed by the 12 national boards under s 39 of the National Law (NSW) and sets out the standards of professional conduct the national boards expect. The Code is used by the boards to evaluate practitioner's conduct. Under the heading "professional values and qualities", the Code provides that when providing care, practitioners have a duty to make patient care their first concern and to practise safely and effectively. Clause (f) relevantly provides that practitioners have a duty to keep their skills and knowledge up to date, refine and develop their clinical judgement as they gain experience, and contribute to maintaining public confidence in the profession.
2. On 1 January 2022, the Podiatry Board of Australia published 'Professional capabilities for podiatrists'. According to the preamble in the introduction, the document identifies the knowledge, skills and professional attributes needed to safely and competently practise as a podiatrist in Australia. The professional capabilities describe the threshold or minimum level of professional capability needed for registration as a podiatrist. A key capability identified is that registered podiatrists must be able to practise in an ethical and professional manner, consistent with relevant legislative and regulatory requirements.

1. Clause 7 of Sch 5D of the National Law (NSW) provides that in proceedings before the Tribunal, if the presiding person thinks it appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case, a direction may be made that the name and addresses of any witnesses not be disclosed in the proceedings and/or not be published. The Commission requested that such a direction be made in respect of the witnesses named in the schedules to the Complaint. This is information about the identity of the practitioner's patients, the detail of which is not relevant to the proceedings. It is unnecessary and undesirable to disclose such private information. As such the presiding member made non-disclosures directions at the outset of the hearing.

1. There are three complaints made by the Commission. Those complaints, together with the particulars, are set out below.

1. The practitioner is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct under s 139B(1)(c) of the National Law (NSW) in that the practitioner has contravened conditions to which the practitioner's registration was subject.

1. Between 26 June 2023 and 25 January 2024, on 311 occasions, the particulars of which are set out in Schedule C to the amended Application, the practitioner practised podiatry without the supervision of a Category A supervisor approved by the Council, in breach of conditions 2 and 3.
2. The practitioner failed to submit the following documentation to the Council by 31 October 2023, in breach of orders (private conditions) 1, 2, 3, and 4:

(1) Continuing professional development (CPD) records for the 2023 registration period;

(2) CPD Plan for the 2024 registration period;

(3) Current training certificate for CPR & management of anaphylaxis and use of an automated external defibrillator (AED);

(4) Evidence of professional indemnity insurance for the 2023 period.

1. The practitioner failed to submit proposed course details to the Council by 26 November 2023, in breach of conditions 4 and 5.

1. The practitioner is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct under s 139B(1)(l) of the National Law (NSW) in that the practitioner has engaged in improper or unethical conduct relating to the practise or purported practise of podiatry.

1. On 20 July 2023, the practitioner knowingly made a false and/or misleading representation to the Council, when he stated during a telephone call with a Monitoring Officer, that he was not currently practising in podiatry.
2. On 20 July 2023, the practitioner knowingly made a false and/or misleading representation to the Council in an email containing the words "I am NOT PRACTICING in any practice" (original emphasis).
3. On 16 August 2023, the practitioner knowingly made a false and/or misleading representation to the Council, when he stated during a telephone call with a Monitoring Officer, that he had not been able to work since imposition of conditions on his registration due to difficulties finding appropriate supervision.
4. On 11 September 2023 the practitioner appeared before a Performance Review Panel convened by the Council and knowingly made a false and/or misleading representation when he stated that he had been unable to work as a podiatrist since conditions were imposed on his registration, due to difficulty finding appropriate supervision.
5. On 17 January 2024, the practitioner knowingly made a false and/or misleading representation to the Council, when he stated during a telephone call with a Monitoring Officer, that due to a "miscommunication", he was unaware that he had to cease practice until a Category A supervisor was approved.
6. On 17 January 2024, the practitioner knowingly made a false and/or misleading representation to the Council in an email which contained the words:

"I am grateful that you have explained to me exactly my limitations and conditions imposed upon me, as I explained to you there seems to be a form of miscommunication, however I am now fully aware of my responsibilities and duties thanks to your clarification".

1. On 18 January 2024, the practitioner knowingly made a false and/or misleading representation to the Council, when he stated during a telephone call with a Monitoring Officer, that due to a "miscommunication", he was unaware that he had to cease practice until a Category A supervisor was approved.
2. On 18 January 2024, the practitioner knowingly made a false and/or misleading representation to the Council in an email which contained the following:

"As I have explained to you it has come to my attention that there seems to be a form of miscommunication as to what restrictions are imposed and my scope of practice, however I am now fully aware of my responsibilities and duties thanks to your clarification. I can confirm that I will be following your advise (sic) and not practicing until a confirmed supervisor is approved by the Council."

1. On 1 February 2024, the practitioner attended a virtual hearing convened under s 150 of the National Law (NSW) and knowingly made false and/or misleading representations to the Council, initially stating that he had continued to practise without a supervisor as he had not understood the conditions when they were first imposed, before later admitting that he had understood and wilfully breached the supervision condition from when it was first imposed.

1. The practitioner is guilty of professional misconduct under s 139E of the National Law (NSW) in that the practitioner has:

(i) engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct of a sufficiently serious nature to justify suspension or cancellation of the practitioner's registration; and/or

(ii) engaged in more than one instance of unsatisfactory professional conduct that, when the instances are considered together, amount to conduct of a sufficiently serious nature to justify the suspension or cancellation of the practitioner's registration.

1. The particulars of Complaint One and Complaint Two are relied upon both individually and cumulatively.

1. The Commission relies on material in its tender bundle and supplementary tender bundle comprising:

(1) The Complaint dated 1 April 2025 together with schedules attached being the conditions imposed by the Podiatry Council effective from 23 June 2023 as varied on 26 September 2023, a table compiled using Medicare data for all services billed by the practitioner to Medicare as 'podiatry health services' and the names of each of the patients billed.

(2) Referral from the Podiatry Council to the Commission dated 5 February 2024.

(3) Documents relating to the complaint from EnableNSW and the first s 150 proceedings, including the index to the s 150 brief, selected exhibits, transcript of the proceedings held on 23 June 2023 and reasons for decision for the proceedings held on 23 June 2023 and 11 July 2023.

(4) Correspondence between the practitioner and the Podiatry Council, including file notes and emails, reasons for decision made by the Performance Review Panel for the hearing on 11 and 23 September 2023, the variation of the conditions and correspondence from the Podiatry Council to the practitioner dated 3 October 2023, together with signed copies of the conditions and correspondence by the practitioner dated 3 November 2023.

(5) Correspondence and file notes of conversations between the practitioner and the Podiatry Council from November 2023 to 18 January 2024.

(6) Documents in relation to the s 150 proceedings in 2024, including the brief, response from the practitioner, correspondence between the Podiatry Council and the practitioner, transcript of the hearing held on 1 February 2024, written reasons for the decision suspending the practitioner's registration dated 14 March 2024 and Medicare records, being the provider servicing report for the period 23 June 2023 to 1 March 2024.

(7) Correspondence between the Commission and the practitioner from April 2024 to November 2024.

(8) Code of conduct effective from June 2022 (AHPRA and national boards)

(9) Professional capabilities for podiatrists effective 1 January 2022 (AHPRA and Podiatry Board).

(10) Documents relating to the practitioner's application for review of the decision made by the Council to suspend his registration (referred to as 'the January 2025 s 150A proceedings') comprising selected exhibits, submissions from the practitioner and written reasons dated 26 February 2025.

(11) Documents relating to the practitioner's second application for review of the decision made by the Council to suspend his registration (referred to as 'the April 2025 s 150A proceedings') comprising selected exhibits, submissions from the practitioner and written reasons dated 11 June 2025.

(12) Documents lodged by the Commission in respect of the Stage 2 proceedings, comprising an email from the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), media material comprising screenshots of an appearance by the applicant on the Sunrise program, transcript of a YouTube video on 15 July 2025 and a video of a Media Watch segment on 21 July 2025 together with transcript of the segment.

(13) Documents provided by the practitioner, or relating to the practitioner, including correspondence between the Commission and the practitioner and between the Council and the practitioner, prior to and after the application and amended application were filed by the Commission.

(14) Evidentiary certificates relating to the practitioner, being a certificate from the AHPRA dated 1 August 2025.

1. As already noted in the Background to these reasons, the practitioner made two applications for review of the decision by the Podiatry Council to suspend his registration from 2 February 2024. The Podiatry Council considered his applications for review in January and April 2025 and affirmed the original decision. The practitioner provided additional information which he contended supported a change in circumstances. As this is the evidence that he now relies on in these proceedings, it is apt to set out the details of his applications and, in particular, the subsequent findings by the Podiatry Council in its reasons published in February and June 2025.
2. Included in the tender bundle provided by the Commission (refer to (10) and (11) above), is an email from the practitioner dated 26 September 2024 attaching his submission seeking review of the suspension. The practitioner stated that he had finalised his CPD which involved courses relating to diabetes and the foot and biomechanics of the lower limb. He attached his CPD files including these certificates and his reflections. He also attached his 2023 CPD and correspondence with a podiatrist who the practitioner said would be willing to take him on for supervision in his clinic. The documents attached included two certificates of completion for the footwear and diabetes webinar series and diabetes in practise for podiatrists, together with a document from the Podiatry CPD Academy for the clinical biomechanics 'boot camp' showing the practitioner had completed the equivalent of 32 hours of learning through several online courses. These courses were included in the practitioner's 2024 CPD. His 2023 CPD included three courses and self-directed reading literature. The practitioner's application for review also included submissions about his reflections on what he had learned through these courses and provided detailed submissions about why he believed the Podiatry Council should change its decision and revoke his suspension.
3. Following the practitioner's application, the Podiatry Council agreed to convene proceedings under s 150A of the National Law (NSW) to consider his application and the practitioner was given the opportunity to appear by videoconference on 24 January 2025.
4. In its reasons for decision, the delegates of the Podiatry Council set out the history of the matter, including the outcome of the review by the Performance Review Panel on 11 September 2023 in which the Panel had identified the areas of practice where the practitioner was assessed as "Not Competent". The delegates noted that the central issue in the case was to consider what changes have been made to the practitioner's circumstances, whether there was other information relevant to the Podiatrist Council's decision and whether those changes justified setting aside or varying the Podiatrist Council's decision to suspend the practitioner's registration.
5. The delegates noted that the practitioner had completed a number of additional courses which were completed online. It was also noted that the practitioner discussed his reflections on his area of practice where there had been deficiencies and his attempts to resolve those concerns. The delegates nonetheless reported that the activities undertaken by the practitioner in 2023 and 2024 showed a "lack of continuity in his engagement with learning activities". It was suggested that there was a need for more consistent engagement in activities that addressed all areas where the practitioner had been deemed not to be competent. It was further noted that, while the practitioner had provided a screenshot of an email that he had sent to another practitioner seeking supervision, there was no reply from that practitioner. The delegates were not satisfied the applicant had completed enough CPD activities to address all issues of his clinical practice that had been identified as not competent and that he would therefore pose an ongoing and unacceptable risk to the health and safety of the public. The decision of the Podiatry Council was affirmed.
6. In relation to the second review, being the April 2025 s 150A proceedings, the delegates again identified that the central issue for consideration was whether there had been a change in the practitioner's circumstances that would justify setting aside or varying the Podiatry Council's original decision to suspend his registration. The delegates referred to the written submissions made by the applicant in support of his application and noted that he had participated in additional online training, including self-directed case studies.
7. The delegates concluded that this further information was not sufficient to establish or justify a change in the original decision. They were not satisfied that the practitioner had completed enough CPD activities to address all areas of his clinical practice that had been identified as not competent and noted that the practitioner was being referred to the Tribunal for further action. The delegates concluded that, in the absence of evidence of a significant change in the practitioners circumstances which would sufficiently protect the health and safety of any person or persons, the original decision should be affirmed.
8. The documents relied on by the Commission in support of the Stage 2 proceedings were three reports prepared by the practitioner for the NDIA relating to three patients. The reports were dated 23 October and 23 December 2024 and 30 March 2025. The reports describe the practitioner as a podiatrist and set out the practitioner's analysis of the patient's condition and recommendations about their needs.
9. The Commission also relied on videos of the practitioner appearing on the Sunrise program on 10 July 2025 which were subsequently posted to YouTube. The transcript of the program was before the Tribunal. In brief, the practitioner appeared on the program giving advice in relation to podiatry matters and about appropriate supports and recommendation about the shoes that should be worn. The practitioner talked to the presenters of the program about performing assessments, the use of socks and bacteria control and gave advice and recommendations about assessments that should be made for children. He is also recorded as giving advice about specific aspects of foot care. The Sunrise program is a nationally broadcast breakfast program on Channel 7. The appearance was also broadcasted on YouTube.
10. On 21 July 2025, the ABC Media Watch program profiled the practitioner's appearance on Sunrise under the heading "Achilles' heel". It was noted that despite the practitioner appearing on Sunrise as a podiatrist and an expert, he had been suspended from practice from February 2024.

1. The practitioner attended the hearing and made an opening statement to the effect that he did not contest the complaints and that he takes full responsibility for his actions. He wanted to speak to the Tribunal to assist the Tribunal to understand why he had made a number of "ill-informed decisions". The practitioner did not file a reply to the amended application or file and serve any evidence or submissions. He said that he did not want his registration to be cancelled or he wanted it to be cancelled for a shorter period. He said that he had learned things over the last few months. He admitted the particulars in the complaints and accepts that he did not provide documents to the Commission. The practitioner agreed that he had written reports for three patients for the National Disability Insurance Scheme on 23 October 2024, 23 December 2024, and 30 March 2025 after he had been suspended and that he had appeared on the Sunrise television program and in YouTube videos. He also agreed that he provided false and/or misleading information when he was questioned about providing podiatry health services contrary to his registration conditions.
2. In his evidence to the Tribunal, the practitioner said that he had taken on some extracurricular activities and read self-help books including the book Atomic Habits. He had read books on time management and listened to podiatry podcasts about biomechanics. He said that one of the difficulties for him was that he had found a supervisor difficult to find. Initially the supervisor would be positive but then they would not agree. He said that it was extremely difficult not to be working as a podiatrist because he had no other income. He said that he started working in a warehouse about three months ago for income. The applicant said that one of the reasons why he had been driven to continue working in breach of the condition of his registration was to assist his sick parents and sister. The applicant agreed that it was wrong to deceive the patients.
3. The practitioner said that he believed he had improved his competencies. The practitioner confirmed that the CPD records he had submitted to the Podiatry Council were those submitted in September 2024, when he made his first application for review of the suspension of his registration. Those records were included in the Commission's supplementary tender bundle (at pp 51 to 115) and were the subject of the reviews under s 150A of the National Law (NSW).
4. The practitioner said that there were a number of reasons why he had breached his conditions. The first was the financial, not being able to earn an income, and secondly because he did not really understand what he was supposed to do. He said that he would do whatever the Tribunal told him he needed to do to ensure that he was able to continue practising. He accepted that he had been "dragged over the coals" following the Media Watch program and he lost respect from his colleagues. He further said that he could not be cancelled for 12 months as he would not be able to earn enough income − no complaints had been made against him during the suspension period.
5. The practitioner was cross examined by the solicitor advocate for the Commission. In summary, his evidence was:

(1) He agreed that he was a sole practitioner and had been in his own practice since at least 2021. The practitioner agreed that he had been slow to lodge the various applications with EnableNSW and said that one of the reasons why this had been the case is that he was not very healthy and he been undergoing surgery at that time. He accepted that there had been delay of between five and nine months in lodging the relevant document documentation and said that he was ashamed about this.

(2) When asked about his relationship with another practitioner who had conditions imposed on his registration and had nominated the practitioner as his supervisor, the practitioner agreed that the previous relationship between the two had not been disclosed and that this was an issue raised in the performance review in October 2022. He had no explanation for this. The practitioner was further questioned about whether he had read the AHPRA Code of Conduct including, the provisions relating to professional values and qualities. He said that he could not recall this. The practitioner was also asked questions about whether he knew he had obligations to work with the regulator in relation to complaints that have been made against him. He accepted this.

(3) The practitioner confirmed that he had been asked to provide certain documents by the Performance Review Panel but had not done so, he could not explain why this was the case.

(4) The practitioner was questioned about evidence he gave to the Podiatry Council on 23 June 2023 when it was drawn to his attention that the Performance Review Panel had concluded he was not competent in several key areas. The practitioner is recorded as saying "I back my knowledge to some degree. But I don't agree with the fact that I am incompetent". In the hearing, the practitioner said that he now understands the statement that he made during the s 150 proceeding was not correct. He agrees that it was wrong to say that he backed his knowledge given the negative assessment made by the Performance Review Panel.

(5) The practitioner acknowledged that he had been told by the Podiatry Council that it was a condition of his continued practice that he be supervised. He knew that he needed a Category A supervisor in the room with him and that he was not allowed to work if he did not satisfy this condition. He agreed that he had not appealed the decision imposing the conditions and that he understood the conditions when they were provided to him in the written reasons stated 11 July 2023. Despite this, he continued to provide podiatry services for patients, and he admitted that he had billed podiatry services, contrary to those conditions, on all of the occasions particularised by the Commission in Schedule C to the complaint. Schedule C to the complaint identified 311 incidents when the practitioner billed patients for podiatry services between 26 June 2023 and 25 January 2024. The patients were identified in Schedule D to the complaint. There were 189 patients identified.

(6) The practitioner said that he continued to treat patients after the conditions were imposed and on one occasion treated six patients only three days after the Podiatry Council hearing because he was too embarrassed to tell those patients said he was not able to practise.

(7) The practitioner was asked about the representations that he made to monitoring staff of the Podiatry Council on 20 July 2023 in a telephone conversation and an email that he sent to the monitoring staff on the same day stating that he was not practising in any practice. The practitioner said that he did not intend to mislead but he was hoping that he would find somebody else to supervise him in the future.

(8) In relation to the representation made to the Podiatry Council on 16 August 2023 that he had not been able to work since the imposition of the conditions on his registration because he could not find an appropriate supervisor, the practitioner agreed that this was also misleading. He had found it difficult to find an appropriate supervisor but did not disclose that he had in fact been working without a supervisor.

(9) The practitioner was questioned about the fact that he had appeared before the Performance Review Panel convened by the Podiatry Council on 11 September 2023 and had made false and/or misleading representations when he stated to the Panel that he had been unable to work as a podiatrist since conditions were imposed because he had difficulties in finding an appropriate supervisor. He agreed that this was the case. He was also questioned about the representations made by him to the Podiatry Council on 17 and 18 January 2024. He agreed that these representations were not correct.

(10) The practitioner was taken to each of the particulars to Complaint Two, which comprised nine particulars about statements made by the practitioner to the Podiatry Council, either to monitoring officers or delegates of the Council, the details of which are set out in the Background and in the particulars to the Complaint. He admitted that the statements referred to in the particulars were knowingly false and/or misleading. He kept on billing because of the financial pressure that he was under. He also said that he knew that he needed to provide updated CPD records but had not done so. He accepted that he had been provided with details of the revised conditions on or about 3 October 2023. He also agreed that he was aware that Category B supervision was not considered to be acceptable by the Podiatry Council and this was recorded in its reasons dated 26 September 2023. The practitioner agreed that he did not have professional indemnity insurance at all relevant times.

(11) When the practitioner was questioned as to why he had continued to work and bill services after the conditions had been imposed, including the varied conditions, he said that he could not justify this. He said that he did this out of fear and did not know what alternative employment he could have obtained. He had since been humbled by the experience and was now working in a warehouse. He said that he was avoiding dealing with the issue and had psychological problems at the time although, when asked about whether he sought counsel from other practitioners or his insurer, Guild Insurance, he said that he did not.

(12) In the transcript of the proceedings held on 1 February 2024, it is recorded that the practitioner said that he understood the concept of not being able to work without a supervisor but said he "didn't understand the specific restrictions". When the practitioner was questioned about this, he said that he was still confused and he had a lot of things going on at the time of the proceedings but later said that the "penny had dropped" and he realised that he had "clearly done something that is wrong".

(13) The practitioner was asked about whether he sought guidance from anybody about appearing on the Sunrise program. He said that he spoke to family members and thought that because he was being asked general podiatry questions, he would be able to do this. He was also asked about whether he had sought guidance about writing the NDIS reports. He said that he did not.

(14) The practitioner said that he had acted out of ignorance and had underestimated the obligations under the AHPRA Code. He said that he felt pressured to help the patients who wanted him to assist and he was pressured to earn the income. When the practitioner was asked whether he should have said "no" to those patients, he agreed that this was the case.

1. The Commission submits that, having regard to the evidence before the Tribunal and the admissions made by the practitioner at the hearing, the Tribunal should be satisfied that Complaints One and Two, being the complaints about unsatisfactory professional conduct, are both proven and that the Tribunal should consider that these complaints to be sufficiently serious to amount to professional misconduct. As such, the Tribunal should find that Complaint Three is also proven.
2. In oral submissions after hearing the evidence, the Commission submitted that the conditions imposed were easy to understand, he had signed his agreement to the conditions, there was clear evidence the practitioner did not follow those conditions, and he had options to seek guidance from others about his position. The practitioner could have easily completed his CPD activities as recommended by the Performance Review Panel but did not do so. The practitioner admitted that he had made false and/ or misleading statements about not practising. This was a serious breach. It was submitted that there was a risk in the practitioner continuing to practise and that his registration should be cancelled with a non-reviewable period of 12 months. It was further submitted that the Tribunal should reject the submissions made by the practitioner that there was a "miscommunication" and that he did not really intend to make false and/or misleading representations. These representations were made on several occasions. In addition, there was evidence that the practitioner had continued to provide podiatry health services and to bill patients on repeated occasions after the conditions were imposed and he was notified of those conditions, as well as after the conditions were varied and he was notified the conditions had been varied.
3. The Commission submitted that the practitioner's evidence before the delegates of the Podiatry Council and his evidence to the Tribunal showed that he had poor insight about the seriousness of the breaches. The practitioner could not be trusted in circumstances where he had repeatedly disregarded conditions and had not been frank about the position when he was confronted about the issue.
4. It was further submitted that if the practitioner was allowed to continue to operate as an unregistered health practitioner, which he may be able to do in areas outside podiatry, there was still a risk to the public. This risk was exacerbated by the practitioner's apparent lack of understanding and insight about the seriousness of his breaches and about ethics and professional standards and values. The Commission submitted that this is such a serious matter that the practitioner should not be able to practise, either as a podiatrist or as an unregistered provider of any other health services, for 12 months.
5. In oral submissions at the end of the hearing, the practitioner submitted that this issue had been ongoing since 2021. He agreed that he had made mistakes, but said he wanted the opportunity to prove himself. He considered there would be a loss to the community if he was not able to practise because he provided a valuable service. He believed he had completed enough CPD and that his knowledge had improved. He was helping the community, and the Tribunal should take this into account. He further submitted that if his registration was cancelled for 12 months, he would have to complete his supervision after this. In his view the proposed orders were unfair because anybody could operate as an unregistered health service provider.

1. The practitioner was registered as a podiatrist in 2019 and after that time and, at least from 2021, worked as a sole practitioner. In 2021, he submitted 89 applications to EnableNSW for payments for orthotics. This was investigated and, while EnableNSW did not find there was sufficient evidence to prove impropriety to the standard required of beyond reasonable doubt, EnableNSW identified concerning anomalies. He concedes he made mistakes.
2. The practitioner was assessed by a Performance Review Panel and was assessed on 25 May 2023 and 8 June 2023 as not competent in six areas identified in the Podiatry Board of Australia's Professional Capabilities for Podiatrists. These areas included the podiatrists professional Code of Conduct, patient assessment and care planning, critical thinking and decision making, documentation, duty of care and infection control.
3. Having regard to this review, the Podiatry Council imposed conditions on the practitioner's registration effective from 23 June 2023 and those conditions, as later varied, provided that the practitioner could not practise as a podiatrist without Category A supervision. Despite this, the practitioner continued to practise and billed patients through Medicare for podiatry health services on 311 occasions between 26 June 2023 and 25 January 2024 in breach of conditions 2 and 3. At the hearing before the Tribunal, the practitioner admitted this. Given this was substantiated by the documentary evidence provided by the Commission in its tender bundle as outlined above, these admissions were appropriate.
4. We find that the practitioner failed to submit certain documents to the Podiatry Council by 31 October 2023 as required by orders one, 2, 3 and 4 of the private conditions imposed by the Podiatry Council on 26 September 2023. Those documents included the practitioner's CPD records for 2023, his CPD plan for 2024, a current training certificate for CPR and management of anaphylaxis and use of an automated external defibrillator and evidence of professional indemnity insurance for the 2023. Further, the practitioner failed to submit proposed course details to the Podiatry Council by 26 November 2023, in breach of conditions 4 and 5 of the conditions imposed by the Podiatry Council on 23 September 2023. He submitted some documents with his application for review in September 2024, but this information was subsequently assessed by the delegates who conducted the January 2025 and April 2025 reviews as unsatisfactory.
5. We also find that the practitioner made false and/or misleading statements to the Podiatry Council, through its monitoring offices or through other delegates, on several occasions by denying that he had continued to work in contravention of the conditions imposed. These statements were made on 20 July and 16 August 2023, 11 September 2023, 17 and 18 January 2024 and on 1 February 2024. It is notable that the practitioner made these certain of statements when he appeared before the Performance Review Panel on 11 September 2023 and when he attended a hearing with delegates of the Podiatry Council on 1 February 2024.
6. The practitioner has now admitted that these statements were false and/or misleading in his evidence before the Tribunal, although he seeks to explain those statements by suggesting he was confused. We reject this evidence. The conditions were clear, yet the statements made by the practitioner, which are evidenced by his emails or transcript available in the s 150 proceedings, are unequivocal. These communications cannot be described as "miscommunications".
7. The practitioner was not permitted to provide podiatry health services other than under Category A supervision. The conditions were clear and unambiguous and were communicated to him, firstly, on 23 June 2023 and secondly, when the condition was varied, at the hearing on 11 September 2023. Relevantly, details of the conditions were provided to him in the written reasons of the Podiatry Council dated 11 July 2023 and 23 September 2023.
8. There is no dispute that the practitioner was unable to obtain such supervision and was therefore unable to work as a podiatrist.
9. At the time the practitioner made the representations to the Podiatry Council, he had repeatedly billed patients for podiatry health services. He knew, or must have known, that these representations were false and/or misleading. While the practitioner said during hearing before the delegates of the Podiatry Council on 1 February 2024 that he was confused, it is clear during his evidence given later in those proceedings that he was not confused.
10. We do not accept that the practitioner was confused or that there was any basis for him to be confused about this issue. He was told about the conditions, hard copies of the written conditions were served on him and he signed them indicating that he understood them. The undisputed fact is that despite this the practitioner repeatedly billed patients with services recorded as podiatry health services after these conditions were imposed.
11. We also find that the practitioner did not complete CPD activities in 2023 and 2024 to the satisfaction of the Podiatry Council and we accept the finding of the Podiatry Council that the practitioner's engagement was lacking in engagement and continuity.
12. We are not satisfied there is new evidence evidencing a change in circumstances and we accept the submissions made by the Commission that the practitioner lacks insight into the seriousness of the complaints that have been made against him.
13. We are comfortably satisfied, and so find, that the particulars set out in respect of Complain One are established. We are further satisfied that the practitioner made the statements referred to in the particulars to Complaint Two and that he knew, or ought to have known those statements were false and/or misleading. As such, we find that the each of the particulars in Complaint Two are established.
14. Our findings are based on the Commission's documentary evidence set out above, the admissions made by the practitioner, his statements in the interview with the Performance Review Panel, the evidence he gave at the s 150 proceedings and the evidence his gave at this hearing,
15. We also find that the practitioner prepared three reports for the NDIA relating to three patients, dated 23 October and 23 December 2024 and 30 March 2025 providing recommendations and describing himself as a podiatrist. He appeared on the Sunrise program on 10 July 2025, which was subsequently posted to YouTube, giving advice about specific podiatry issues and held himself out as a podiatrist and expert, without disclosing his registration had been suspended. He did not seek professional advice or guidance about these matters.

1. The first step is for the Tribunal to determine whether Complaints One, Two and Three have been proven. If so, it then falls to the Tribunal to determine what protective orders should be made, if any.

Are the particulars in Complaint One and Two proved, and if so, is the practitioner guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct?

1. Given our findings at [113]-[126] we also find that the conduct alleged in Complaints One and Two has been established.
2. We are satisfied that the conduct by the practitioner in respect of Complaint One is "unsatisfactory professional conduct" within the meaning of s 139B(1)(c) of the National Law (NSW) because the practitioner has contravened conditions of his registration on multiple occasions. He continued to work without a Category A supervisor in breach of conditions 2 and 3 of his registration; he failed to submit documentation to the Podiatry Council by 31 October 2023 in breach of conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the private conditions imposed on 23 September 2023; and he failed to submit proposed course details to the Podiatry Council by 26 November 2023 in breach of conditions 4 and 5 of the private conditions imposed on 23 September 2023.
3. We are also satisfied the conduct by the practitioner in respect of Complaint Two is "unsatisfactory professional conduct" within the meaning of s 139B(1)(l) of the National Law (NSW) because he repeatedly provided false and/or misleading information to the Podiatry Council about his compliance with the conditions of his registration.
4. Section 139(1)(l) provides that "unsatisfactory professional conduct" includes "other improper or unethical conduct". In Health Care Complaints Commission v Liu [2016] NSWCATOD 133 at [51]- [55], the Tribunal adopted the definitions in the Macquarie Dictionary for "improper" as not proper, not in accordance with propriety of behaviour and unsuitable or inappropriate and "unethical" as contrary to moral precept, immoral or in contravention of some code of professional conduct. The Tribunal further found that the test of whether conduct is improper is an objective one.
5. In our view, making repeated false and/or misleading statements to the regulator about something as important as compliance with the conditions of registration is objectively improper and unethical. This is particularly so in circumstances where the practitioner was being expressly asked by monitoring officers and delegates of the Podiatry Council in a hearing about these matters. Compliance with conditions 2 and 3 was significant because registration to practise is central to the regulation of health practitioners and to the protection of the public. The imposition of conditions on registration and compliance with those conditions is critical to the integrity of the health system and the regulation of practitioners operating in the system. Cooperating with the regulators is also critical to the integrity of the system and public confidence. In our view, providing false and/or misleading statements to regulators is very serious and shows unethical and improper behaviour by the practitioner. He knew this was improper and excuses about financial pressure does not provide an adequate or plausible explanation. The practitioner put his financial interests before the interests of patients and public safety and confidence and we do not accept that his motives were altruistic or that he was continuing to breach conditions of his registration for the benefit of the community.

If the particulars in Complaint Three are proved, is the practitioner guilty of professional misconduct?

1. The Commission relies on the particulars of Complaint One and Complaint Two both individually and cumulatively.
2. As already noted, we are satisfied that each of the particulars in Complaint One and Complaint Two are proven.
3. Under s 139E of the National Law (NSW), if the practitioner is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct this will amount to professional misconduct if that conduct is of a sufficiently serious nature to justify suspension or cancellation of registration or if the conduct is more than one instance and those instances, when considered together, are sufficiently serious in nature to justify suspension or cancellation of registration.
4. In Health Care Complaints Commission v Le [2021] NSWCATOD 104, the Tribunal, citing previous authorities, stated at [71]:

"...

(3) Professional misconduct refers to conduct which is sufficiently serious to justify suspension or cancellation of the respondent's registration. The determination of whether conduct amounts to professional misconduct has, as its starting point, an objective assessment of the respondent's conduct against the standard of conduct reasonably expected of an equivalent practitioner. Importantly, the gravity of professional misconduct is not to be measured by reference to the worst case but by the extent to which the conduct departs from 'proper' or 'reasonably expected' standards: Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield [1997] NSWSC 297; (1997) 41 NSWLR 630 at 638.

(4) Whether conduct is sufficiently serious to warrant suspension or deregistration is a matter of degree and judgment: Sabag v Health Care Complaints Commission [2001] NSWCA 411 at [82];

..."

1. In Chen v Health Care Complaints Commission [2017] NSWCA 186, Basten JA said at [19] that "professional misconduct" does not have a specific meaning, and it is merely a category of unsatisfactory professional conduct. Basten JA further explained at [20]:

"There is no category of unsatisfactory professional conduct which is not capable, depending on the circumstances, of giving rise to professional misconduct and hence engaging the power of either suspension or cancellation of registration. The only requirement is that it be "sufficiently serious" to justify such an order, a characterisation which must depend upon an evaluative judgment made by the Tribunal. Some, perhaps all, categories include conduct which may reveal a defect of character as to which the Tribunal may conclude that the person should not be allowed to practise his or her profession unless at some future date the practitioner is able to satisfy the Tribunal that the defect has been overcome. Incompetence or inadequate care may in some circumstances be remediable by specific steps; in other circumstances the Tribunal may be concerned that the carelessness, for example, is such as to cast doubt on the suitability of the person to practise medicine. Each of the criteria for cancellation or suspension may be analysed in this way. Each case will depend upon an evaluative judgment to be made by the Tribunal as to the nature and seriousness of the conduct. It follows that the legislative scheme is inconsistent with the implication of the abstract condition sought to be imposed by the practitioner on the language of s 149C(1)."

1. The Commission submits that the practitioner's conduct was sufficiently serious to amount to professional misconduct. We accept these submissions.
2. We are satisfied that the conduct of the practitioner amounts to professional misconduct for the following reasons:

(1) There is evidence of a blatant disregard by the practitioner of the registration conditions. Despite the conditions imposed on 23 June 2023, the practitioner breached the conditions on 158 occasions up to the time of the second hearing. After 23 September 2023, the practitioner further breached the conditions by billing podiatry services on 153 occasions. He also failed to comply with conditions 1 to 4 of the private conditions and 4 and 5 of the public conditions. At the time the practitioner was breaching these conditions, which was over an extended period, he was being reminded of his obligations and was corresponding with and speaking to the Podiatry Council. He was being reviewed by the Performance Review Panel.

(2) The conditions were imposed for the protection of the public and the breaches occurred over a period of seven months. The conditions were imposed because the practitioner was found not to be competent in key areas. This followed from a review undertaken by the Podiatry Council after a complaint had been made by EnableNSW in relation to serious anomalies identified in the application and funding for orthotics for patients.

(3) When the practitioner was questioned about his breaches, he provided false and/or misleading information to the Podiatry Council on nine occasions, again over a period seven months. This included providing false and/or misleading information during a hearing.

(4) There is evidence that the practitioner put his own interests ahead of the interests of patients and the public more generally.

1. The Tribunal has discretion to cancel a registered health practitioner's registration if, relevantly, the Tribunal is satisfied the practitioner is guilty of professional misconduct: National Law (NSW), s 149C(1)(b). The order may also provide that an application for review cannot be made until after a specified time: National Law (NSW), s 149C(7).
2. The Commission submits that the protection of public health and safety is paramount (National Law (NSW), s 3B). This objective is not confined to protecting patients or potential patients from the practise or incompetence of a particular practitioner. It includes protecting the public from similar misconduct or incompetence of other practitioners. This objective is achieved by setting and maintaining the standards, and, where appropriate, by cancelling the registration of practitioners who are not competent or otherwise not fit to practise, including those who have been guilty of serious misconduct. Taking action in relation to such conduct operates as a deterrent to the individual concerned as well as to general deterrence for other practitioners. This also maintains public confidence by sending a message to practitioners and to the community that practitioners who engage in conduct that does not meet the requisite standard will not be permitted to practise.
3. The Commission further contends that an order to cancel the practitioner's registration, with a 12 month non-review period, is needed to protect the health and safety of the public, denounce the practitioner's conduct and allow the practitioner further time to demonstrate whether he has gained any insight, whether he has completed any further education and whether his character is reformed so that the Tribunal can be satisfied he can be trusted to practise safely and ethically in the future.
4. We have found the practitioner is guilty of professional misconduct. The question is whether the practitioner's registration should be cancelled in the circumstances of this case and whether it should be cancelled with a specified non-review period.
5. Matters said to be relevant to the exercise of this discretion and whether a non-review period should be fixed are: the importance of protecting the health and safety of the public, ensuring that only those who are suitably trained and qualified to practise in a competent and ethical manner are registered, sending a clear message of denouncement of the practitioner's conduct to other professionals and to the practitioner, attempting to predict the time in which a practitioner may reasonably take steps to rehabilitate and indicating the minimum time within which the Tribunal considers the person should not be able to practise their profession, taking into account the seriousness of the breach but also holding open to the practitioner the possibility of return to the profession at a later time: refer Chen v HCCC [2017] NSWCA 186 at [88] and HCCC v Reid [2018] NSWCATOD 162 at [660].
6. It is to the practitioner's credit that he now admits the particulars raised in the complaints and appeared to be generally open and honest in giving his evidence to the Tribunal. He says he takes responsibility for those matters. However, these admissions were not made until after proceedings were commenced, by which time the practitioner was confronted with incontrovertible and undisputed evidence about the breaches.
7. The practitioner repeatedly breached his registration conditions. Further, he provided three NDIS reports in late 2024 and early 2025, at which time his registration had been suspended for months. Notably, these reports were provided after the practitioner requested his first s 150A review in September 2024 and, in the case of the last report, after he had been notified this review was unsuccessful. In the reasons for the s 150A January 2025 proceedings, dated 26 February 2025, it was noted that, while the practitioner had provided evidence of recent CPD activities, the delegates were not satisfied the practitioner had engaged sufficiently in CPD activities to address all of the areas in which he was found not to be competent. The practitioner made the second application for review in April 2025, less than six weeks after the practitioner was notified about the outcome of his first application for review. He failed to provide new evidence to address the issues of concern raised by the Podiatry Council in the first review. This demonstrates a lack of insight and appreciation by the practitioner about the seriousness of the reasons for his suspension and the rejection of his first review.
8. The fact that the practitioner went on to commit further breaches after he was suspended and at the time he was seeking reviews of the suspension raises serious concerns about the practitioner's judgement, insight and understanding of the seriousness of the action that had been taken against him. Appearing on a national TV program providing advice and recommendations as a podiatrist after these disciplinary proceedings had been commenced, further demonstrates the practitioner's lack of judgement and insight. The practitioner did not seek guidance or advice before doing this or before providing the three NDIS reports. He either did not know this was wrong or blatantly disregarded the suspension - either raises serious concerns.
9. Having regard to these matters, we are satisfied the practitioner's registration should be cancelled with a non-review period of 12 months. We are satisfied he is a risk to the health and safety of the public. He has been independently assessed as not being competent, he has not undertaken sufficient training and CPD to address these issues and lacks sufficient insight or appreciation about the seriousness of these breaches.
10. In our view, the practitioner needs sufficient time away from the profession to accept the consequences of his actions and reflect on his actions and what steps can or should be taken to meet the appropriate standard and relevant competencies. It is difficult to assess how much time the practitioner will need to do this. It has been two years since the practitioner was suspended yet there is evidence he continued to work after this and has only recently accepted that he may need to take on other roles to earn income. He says cancellation of 12 months is too harsh. However, the practitioner spent 12 months following his suspension seeking reviews of the suspension decision yet failed to engage in sufficient CPD to address the Podiatry Council's concerns. He has obtained alternative employment and while this employment does not allow him to use his degree and training, he can still earn income while seeking opportunities to improve his skill, knowledge and training as a podiatrist to the required standard.
11. We therefore accept the Commission's submissions that a 12-month non-review period is appropriate. This will give the practitioner time to undertake further CPD and to engage in non-patient facing mentoring with a suitably experienced practitioner.
12. The Commission also seeks an order under s 149C(5) of the National Law (NSW) that the practitioner be prohibited from providing health services as defined by s 4 of the HCC Act until the Tribunal makes a reinstatement order in relation to the practitioner under s 163B of the National Law (NSW).
13. Section 149C(5) of the National Law (NSW) provides that if the Tribunal suspends or cancels a practitioner's registration and is satisfied the practitioner poses a substantial risk to the health of members of the public, the Tribunal may prohibit the person from providing health services or specified health services or may place conditions on the provision of health services or specified health services for the period specified in the order or permanently.
14. The phrase "substantial risk" is not defined in the National Law (NSW) and has been considered by the Tribunal to be a risk that is material and real or apparent on the evidence, not a risk that is without substance or speculative: HCCC v Brush [2015] NSWCATOD 120 at [96]; HCCC v Choi [2017] NSWCATOD 82 at [75]; HCCC v Menz (No 2) [2017] NSWCATOD 172 (HCCC v Menz (No 2)) at [18]; and HCCC v Collins [2021] NSWCATOD 132 at [97]. It is also submitted that the question of whether a person poses a substantial risk to the health of the public must be assessed by evaluating the risk posed to the public if the person were to be involved in the provision of health services: HCCC v Menz (No 2).
15. A "health service" is defined broadly in s 5 of the National Law (NSW) to include services, whether public or private services, provided by registered health practitioners. It may also include, for instance, services provided by a masseur. The definition in s 4 of the HCC Act covers similar services but is wider in that it includes massage therapy, acupuncture and "services provided in other alternative health care fields": National Law (NSW), s 5(k).
16. The Commission contends that the practitioner poses a substantial risk to the health and safety of the public and that an order should be made for the following reasons:

(1) The practitioner repeatedly breached his conditions despite the risk that the Podiatry Council would detect his conduct, conceding to the delegates in the second s 150 hearing that he made a "risky decision" (at p 314 of the tender bundle, Exhibit A1);

(2) He repeatedly practised unsupervised in breach of his conditions and compounded his conduct with repeated dishonesty;

(3) The practitioner could use his training to seek work as an unregistered solo health practitioner working with patients without oversight, such as a masseur;

(4) The practitioner may place patients at risk as an unregistered practitioner in the future, particularly given that the performance assessment found he was practising at such an unsatisfactory level that he posed a significant risk to the general public, including with unacceptable infection control (at p 134 of the tender bundle, Exhibit A1);

(5) The practitioner did not appear to take the assessment process seriously and in the s 150 proceedings, the delegates identified an urgent risk to health and safety of the public;

(6) The Performance Review Panel found that the practitioner's practise posed a risk to the health and safety of the public and that he had limited understanding of the seriousness of the concerns about his knowledge, skill and practise;

(7) When a member of the public attends any health care setting, they need to be able to trust that the health professionals responsible for their care, whether they are registered or unregistered, will uphold expected standards of safe and ethical behaviour - there is a risk the practitioner will not do this; and

(8) If the practitioner were permitted to provide health services during the period when his registration is cancelled, it would substantially undermine the protective purpose of that order.

1. We accept these submissions and agree that the practitioner should be prohibited from providing any health service as defined by s 4 of the HCC Act. We further note that the practitioner was aware of the restrictions and the monitoring of his practice yet continued to breach the Podiatry Council conditions and orders, apparently driven by his desire and need to earn income from his health service practice. This suggests recklessness and we accept the Commission's submission that permitting the practitioner to provide health services during the period when his registration is cancelled has the potential to substantially undermine the protective purpose of the order.
2. In summary, cancellation of the practitioner's registration, together with the prohibition order and a 12-month non-review period, is not only protective but will send a message to the practitioner, the community and the profession more generally about the seriousness of the professional misconduct. Accordingly, we make the orders as requested by the Commission.

1. The Commission submits that Tribunal's power to order costs is conferred by cl 13 of Sch 5D to the National Law (NSW).
2. Clause 13(1) provides that the Tribunal may order the complainant (if any), the registered health practitioner or student concerned, or any other person entitled to appear to pay costs to another person as decided by the Tribunal. Clause 13(4) states that cl 13 applies instead of s 60 of the NCAT Act, which provides that each party is to pay their own costs unless there are "special circumstances".
3. The Commission submits the general rule is that costs follow the event and that "mere impecuniosity is not a justifiable reason for departing from that rule": Health Care Complaints Commission v Philipiah [2013] NSWCA 342 at [42]. The presumption that a successful party is entitled to their costs is generally only displaced where there is some disentitling conduct by the successful party: Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11. This submission is consistent with the authority of the Court of Appeal in Qasim v Health Care Complaints Commission [2015] NSWCA 282 at [85], Health Care Complaints Commission v Do [2014] NSWCA 307 at [51] and the Tribunal's Occupational Division Guideline, Costs (August 2017) which states at cl 14:

"The Tribunal may make a costs order in disciplinary proceedings or an appeal brought under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. Costs are generally awarded to the successful party unless there are disqualifying circumstances." (original emphasis)

1. The practitioner submits that he has no money and could not afford to pay costs. He seeks an order that each party pay their own costs but does not point to any disentitling conduct by the Commission.
2. The general principles in relation to costs in matters under the National Law (NSW) have been summarised in the decision of Deputy President, Seiden SC, DCJ, in Puri v Medical Council of New South Wales (No 2) [2024] NSWCATOD 122.
3. As observed by Deputy President Seiden SC DCJ at [13] and [14], principles relevant to the general rule are that costs generally follow the event, although this is not an absolute rule. Costs compensate the winning party and are not a form of punishment, but this rule may be displaced if the winning party engages in conduct that disentitles them to costs. The onus is on the losing party to establish a basis for any departure from the usual rule: Health Care Complaints Commission v Balafas (No 2) [2021] NSWCATOD 175. Costs may be apportioned or reduced, or various orders may be made that reflect the circumstances and are consistent with the underlying decision. Costs are in the Tribunal's discretion which should be exercised judicially: Cole DCJ in Health Care Complaints Commission v Wilcox (No 2) [2020] NSWCATOD 51 at [11].
4. In our view, the Commission is entitled to its costs on an ordinary basis. The Commission succeeded on all claims made and did not delay or prolong the proceedings. There is no evidence of disentitling conduct that would disturb the usual rule.
5. Accordingly, we order that the practitioner pay the costs of the proceedings, as agreed or as assessed.

(1) The particulars of Complaint One and Complaint Two are established.

(2) The respondent is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct under ss 139B(1)(c) and s 139(1)(l) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW).

(3) Complaint Three is established.

(4) The respondent is guilty of professional misconduct s 139E of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW).

1. Accordingly, the Tribunal makes the following orders:

(1) The Tribunal orders that the respondent's registration be cancelled pursuant to s 149C(1)(b) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) with a non-review period of 12 months from the date of this order under s 149C(7).

(2) The Tribunal orders that the respondent is prohibited from providing any health service, as defined in s 4 of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW), until the Tribunal makes a reinstatement order in relation to the respondent under s 163B of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW)

(3) An order that the respondent pay the applicant's costs under clause 13 of Schedule 5D of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) as agreed or assessed.

(4) A direction is made that the name and addresses of the witnesses listed in the Schedule to the Complaint attached to the Amended Application for disciplinary findings and orders not be disclosed under cl 7 of Schedule 5D of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW).

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.