Health Care Complaints Commission v Phillips

Catchwords: PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – health care professional – psychologist – whether unsatisfactory professional conduct (improper or unethical conduct) established – whether professional misconduct established – appropriate protective orders – appropriate protective orders in circumstances where the partis agree as to the protective order – role of the Tribunal

Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), ss 36, 50
Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW), ss 39, 40
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), ss 3, 139B, 139E, 149C, 165H, 165I, 165J,165M; cl 7 of Sch 5D

Cases Cited: Chen v Health Care Complaints Commission [2017] NSWCA 186
Health Care Complaints Commission v Chin [2024] NSWCATOD 176
Health Care Complaints Commission v Do [2014] NSWCA 307
Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield [1997] 41 NSWLR 630
Health Care Complaints Commission v Nguyen [2025] NSWCATOD 121
Health Care Complaints Commission v Salloum [2025] NSWCATOD 16
Health Care Complaints Commission v Suri [2024] NSWCATOD 195
Lee v Health Care Complaints Commission [2012] NSWCA 80
Prakash v Health Care Complaints Commission [2006] NSWCA 153
Re Dr Parajuli [2010] NSWMT 3
Sabag v Health Care Complaints Commission [2001] NSWCA 411
Saville v Health Care Complaints Commission [2006] NSWCA 298

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Health Care Complaints Commission (Applicant)
Lisa Maree Phillips (Respondent)

Representation: Solicitors:
Health Care Complaints Commission (Applicant)
Respondent (No appearance)

File Number(s): 2025/00140372

Publication restriction: The Tribunal made an order pursuant to cl 7 of Sch 5D of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) prohibiting the disclosure to any person or entity the names, addresses or any other identifying information of the person identified as Patient A in the Schedule to the Complaint attached to the applicant’s Application for Disciplinary Findings and Orders filed 11 April 2025, and Patient A’s mother, referred to as Patient B.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. These proceedings concern complaints brought by the applicant (Commission) against the respondent (practitioner).

2. By an application filed 11 April 2025, the Commission sought cancellation of the respondent’s registration as a psychologist, under s 149C(1)(b) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law NSW (National Law), with a non-review period of 12 months.

3. A combined Stage One and Stage Two hearing was held on 30 March 2026.

4. We have found:

5. Particulars (1) and (2) of Complaint One are established;

6. Complaint One is established, in that the respondent is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct pursuant to s 139B(1)(l) of the National Law;

7. Particular (1) of Complaint Two is established;

8. Complaint Two is established, in that the practitioner is guilty of professional misconduct pursuant to s 139E of the National Law.

9. For the following reasons, we have decided to order that:

10. the registration of the practitioner as a psychologist to be cancelled pursuant to s 149C(1)(b) of the National Law;

11. any application for review of that order not be made until two years after the date of these orders;

12. the practitioner is to pay the Commission’s costs as agreed or as assessed.

The Complaint

6. The Commission filed its Complaint on 11 April 2025, in which two complaints were made.

Background

7. The background to the two complaints made by the Commission was stated as:

“The practitioner first held a consuetation [sic – consultation] with Patient A on 25 March 2013 at Greenhills Psychology, East Maitland.

Patient A attended her final consultation with the practitioner on 19 June 2017.

The practitioner had 49 total consultations with Patient A.

The practitioner sent a discharge letter to Patient A’s referring general practitioner on 19 October 2017.”

Complaint One

8. Complaint One was that the practitioner is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct under s 139B (1)(I) of the National Law in that the practitioner engaged in improper or unethical conduct relating to the practice or purported practice of psychology.

9. The Particulars of Complaint One were:

10. between early August 2017 and early January 2018, the practitioner breached professional boundaries when she engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with Patent A;

11. between early January 2018 to 8 May 2023, the practitioner breached professional boundaries when she engaged in an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with Patient A.

12. The Commission says that the conduct in any of Particulars (1) and (2) of Complaint One is repeated and relied upon in combination as a course of conduct amounting to unsatisfactory professional conduct.

Complaint Two

11. Complaint One was that the practitioner is guilty of professional misconduct under s 139E of the National Law in that the practitioner has:

12. engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct of a sufficiently serious nature to justify suspension or cancellation of the practitioner’s registration; or in the alternative,

13. 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.

14. As to the Particulars of Complaint Two, the Commission repeats the Particulars to Complaint One and relies on those Particulars both individually and cumulatively.

Practitioner’s position

13. In the practitioner’s Reply to Application for Disciplinary Findings filed 21 July 2025 (Reply), a document that was prepared by the practitioner’s legal representatives, the practitioner:

14. admits the Particulars of Complaint One, and Complaint One; and

15. admits the Particulars of Complaint Two, and Complaint Two.

16. In the Reply, the practitioner also agrees that the orders sought by the Commission (namely cancellation of her registration as a psychologist and a non-renewal period of 12 months), are suitable in all the circumstances.

The parties’ documents

15. The documents of both parties were contained in a 768 page joint evidence bundle of the parties filed 8 September 2025 (JEB). Relevantly, these materials included (but were not limited to) a witness statement of Patient A dated 11 October 2024 together with five attachments; character references relied on by the practitioner at the s 150 proceedings before the Psychology Council of NSW (Council); correspondence between the parties; the materials before the Council; and Patient A’s medical records. [1]

16. In addition, the Tribunal had the benefit of:

17. a statement of Agreed Facts signed by the parties; [2]

18. submissions of the Commission; [3]

19. submissions of the practitioner; [4]

20. a letter to the Tribunal from the practitioner copied to the Commission dated 6 February 2026; [5]

21. email correspondence between the parties; [6]

22. the practitioner’s Reply. [7]

Procedural matters

17. In the Reply, the practitioner requested that a hearing be dispensed pursuant to s 50 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 201**3 (NSW) (NCAT Act) and the matter determined “on the papers”. The practitioner submitted that this would be consistent with the “guiding principle” in s 36 of the NCAT Act, namely, the just quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in dispute.

18. The practitioner submitted that ss 165H, 165I, 165J and 165M of the National Law supported her application that a hearing be dispensed with. Those sections provide:

165H No inquiry required if complaint admitted [NSW]

No inquiry need be conducted into a complaint referred to the Tribunal under this Law if the registered health practitioner or student who is the subject of the complaint admits the subject matter of the complaint in writing to the Tribunal.

165I Notice of time and place of inquiry or appeal [NSW]

The Tribunal must give not less than 14 days’ notice of an inquiry or appeal under this Law to each of the following—

(a) the registered health practitioner or student the subject of the inquiry or appeal;

(b) the Council for the health profession;

(c) the National Board for the health profession;

(d) for an inquiry into a complaint, the Commission;

(e) the Chairperson of the relevant Committee, if appropriate.

165J Representation before Tribunal [NSW]

(1) At an inquiry conducted or appeal heard under this Law by the Tribunal, the registered health practitioner or student and any complainant concerned are entitled to attend and to be represented by—

(a) an Australian legal practitioner; or

(b) with the leave of the member presiding, another adviser.

(2) The Tribunal may grant leave for another person to appear (whether in person or by an Australian legal practitioner or another adviser) at an inquiry or appeal if the Tribunal is satisfied that it is appropriate for the person to appear.

(3) This section does not prevent the Tribunal from proceeding in the absence of the registered health practitioner or student concerned, as long as the practitioner or student has been given notice of the inquiry or appeal.

165M Tribunal to provide details of decisions [NSW]

(1) As soon as practicable after making a decision on an inquiry or an appeal under this Law (bearing in mind the public welfare and seriousness of the matter), the Tribunal must give a written statement of the decision to—

(a) the parties; and

(b) the Council for the health profession in which the practitioner or student is registered (regardless of whether it is a party).

(2) The statement of a decision must—

(a) set out any findings on material questions of fact; and

(b) refer to any evidence or other material on which the findings were based; and

(c) give the reasons for the decision.

(3) The Tribunal may also provide the statement of a decision to the persons the Tribunal thinks fit.

(4) Unless the Tribunal has ordered otherwise, the Tribunal is to make publicly available a statement of a decision given by it under this section if the decision is in respect of a complaint that has been proved or admitted in whole or in part.

(5) This section applies to a decision on an inquiry that is conducted into a complaint referred to the Tribunal under this Law where the subject-matter of the complaint is admitted in writing to the Tribunal.

19. The practitioner submitted that:

20. if the registered health practitioner admits the subject matter of the complaint in writing to the Tribunal as required under s 165H of the National Law then an Inquiry is not required;

21. the Tribunal must give not less than 14 days’ notice of an Inquiry under the National Law in compliance with ss 165l(a) and (d) of the National Law;

22. she would be represented by Colin Biggers & Paisley Lawyers should the Tribunal determine that an inquiry was required by s 165J(a)(a) [8] of the National Law; and

23. the Tribunal must provide details of decisions pursuant to ss 165M(2)(a)-(c) of the National Law. The statement of a decision must set out any finding on material questions of fact; and refer to any evidence or other material on which the findings were based; and give the reasons for the decision.

24. The practitioner then submits:

25. the material questions of fact, namely that she entered into a personal and then sexual relationship with Patient A are not in dispute;

26. sections 165l and 165J of the National Law are inconsistent with, and prevail over, the Tribunal’s power under s 50 of the NCAT Act and that notice of an inquiry overrides the power of the Tribunal to dispense with a hearing;

27. she understands that her relationship with Patient A was wrong, has sought and continues to seek supervision and support around the ethical breach despite her registration being suspended;

28. she has never denied the relationship with Patient A; she has provided a consistent version of events, and understands that she should have self-disclosed the relationship to both the Commission and the Council immediately rather than to allow a mandatory complaint to be made; she continues to seek supervision around this breach;

29. her continuation of supervision is for her own self-reflection and to ensure that there will never be a reoccurrence;

30. she is well aware of the power imbalance that such a relationship has and she continues to understand the depth of the ethical breach of the Australian Psychological Society (APS) Code of Ethics;

31. since her suspension on 5 September 2024, she has continued to participate in self-care with her psychologist every 3-4 weeks, and has completed continuing professional development (CPD) courses including:

(a) “Managing the risks of multiple relationships and multiple clients” (b) “From Burnout to Brillance: with personal professional development”; and (c) “Ethical decision making in Psychology”.

8. she had put restrictions in place in her practice back when the relationship with Patient A began to ensure that no conflict and/or breach would arise again; she was a supervisor prior to being suspended and the ethical responsibilities and requirements of this role were at the forefront of her mind;

9. she is genuinely sorry for the mistake of entering into a relationship with Patient A and will ensure that it will not happen again.

10. The submissions may be supportive of the Tribunal not holding a Stage 1 inquiry, but we do not think they are appropriate in respect of a Stage 2 inquiry.

11. The very purpose of the Stage 2 inquiry is to assess all those the understanding and insight which the practitioner claims. Is she truly remorseful? Has she really developed insight? Can the Tribunal, and the public, be positively reassured that the protective order she proposes is an appropriate one?

12. Frankly, we were somewhat surprised that the Commission agreed that the matter could be determined on the papers.

13. It is not for us to speculate on why the practitioner did not wish to appear in person at a hearing, but one might suspect that embarrassment may have something to do with that decision. Be that it may, on 5 February 2026, we notified the parties that we declined to determine the matter on the papers and that an in-person hearing would be held on 30 March 2026.

14. The practitioner responded the following day, in a letter to the Tribunal (copied to the Commission) dated 6 February 2026. [9] Relevantly, the practitioner stated:

“This letter is for the sole purpose of responding to NCAT and the Health Care Complaints Commission on the current status of these proceedings. It is not to be disseminated in part or full to Patient A and/or any other third party without my prior written consent.”

26. We pause to note that in the first instance we published these reasons for decision only to the parties, allowing the practitioner the opportunity to ask for the contents of this letter to be redacted in part or in full from the publication of these reasons to the general public on NSW Caselaw.

27. The letter continues:

“Please note that I am no longer legally represented. I am unable to attend the Hearing on 30 March 2026. I have worked very hard drafting submissions with the support of my lawyers since 28 May 2024, when I first received the Health Care Complaints Commission Complaint, setting out my version of events. I have undertaken reflective practice over the last 21 months as well as continue to participate in independent paid supervision.

I am deeply regretful and apologetic for the acts that led to the breach. I take full responsibility for what occurred. I have attempted to express this, to the best of my ability, in all of my submissions to date. I am disappointed that I breached the Australian Psychological Society Code of Ethics, which was in effect at that time, and that my acts were below the high standard expected of a Clinical Psychologist or within the realm of psychology generally. This is a breach that I am deeply regretful of and something that I will not take for granted and/or make again. However, I am unable to participate in the process any further and therefore I am unable to attend the Hearing on 30 March 2026.

Since 4 September 2024 when my registration was suspended have been working in hospitality and my income reduced substantially. As a result I had to sell my home and move my children and I into my parents home who, were in the end, loaning me funds to pay for my lawyer. I realised that this was not sustainable for the long term so had to withdraw instructions. I ceased engaging my lawyer at the end of 2025.

I am trying to move forward with my life. As of mid-January 2026 I commenced a full time role for an insurer as an Injury Management Advisor. The role entails reviewing claims and working alongside claims officers and injured persons with the provision of allied health support. The role is within Compulsory Third Party (CT) realm which is highly regulated and legislated. It is the first full time role I have had since I was suspended in November 2024 and I feel that I can, with the time that has passed, commence rebuilding my life and start paying off my debts. The role does not relate to the provision of psychology, noting my ongoing suspension, as much as this disappoints me as I was and remain so passionate about the practice of psychology.

I am excited to have somewhere to go and to be part of a working environment where I can make valid contributions. The last 17 months, since my suspension in September 2024, have been a challenging time financially, mentally and emotionally for me. I am hopeful that I can move forward now that I have a role.

Since my suspension I have continued to pay for my professional indemnity insurance and continue to meet the Continuing Professional Development requirements that is required of a registered Clinical Psychologist. I will continue to participate in both reflective practice and supervision. It is hard for me to consider the idea of never returning to psychology noting that I worked so hard for the role and I enjoyed helping client’s [sic – clients] thrive, assist them through challenging life experiences and then guide them to be the best they can be at life. I do hope that one day, should it be permitted by NCAT, the Health Care Complaints Commission and the Psychology Council of NSW that I return to practice.

…

For the sake of clarity I confirm that I will not be able to attend a Hearing in the matter. I hope that the above provides insight into why I am unable to attend and participate in a Hearing before the NCAT Occupational Division.”

(emphasis added)

28. We did not find that the contents of the letter explained to us in any meaningful way why the practitioner was not able to attend the hearing.

29. In those circumstances, the practitioner did not attend the hearing, and the hearing proceeded in her absence.

Facts

30. We make the following relevant findings.

31. The underlined facts appearing were agreed facts set out in Exhibit 2. The non-underlined findings are additional facts which we thought important to include in these reasons.

1982

32. The practitioner was born in 1982.

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

33. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

2004

34. In 2004, practitioner completed a Bachelor of Psychology at the University of Newcastle.

2005

35. From 5 April 2005, the practitioner was registered as a psychologist.

36. Between 2005 and 2006, the practitioner worked as an intern psychologist at the University of Newcastle Psychology Clinic, Community Health in East Maitland, the Department of Ageing and Disability Home Care and The Bipolar Program in Broadmeadow.

37. From 2005, the practitioner worked as a psychologist at the University of Newcastle, Centre for Brain and Mental Health.

2007

38. From 2007-2008, the practitioner worked as a psychologist at NewPsych Consultants in Newcastle.

39. In 2008, the practitioner completed a Doctorate of Clinical Psychology at the University of Newcastle.

40. From October 2008, the practitioner worked in private practice as a Clinical Psychologist at Greenhills Clinical Psychology.

2010

41. From 2010, the practitioner was required to comply with the APS Code of Ethics, including that:

42. psychologists make reasonable arrangements for the continuity of service provision when they are no longer able to deliver the psychological service;

43. psychologists avoid engaging in disreputable conduct that reflects negatively on the profession or discipline of psychology;

44. psychologists do not engage in sexual activity with a former client within two years after terminating the professional relationship with the former client;

45. psychologists who wish to engage in sexual activity with former clients after a period of two years from the termination of the service, first explore with a senior psychologist the possibility that the former client may be vulnerable and at risk of exploitation, and encourage the former client to seek independent counselling on the matter.

2013

42. On 11 March 2013, Patient A’s then general practitioner (GP) wrote a referral to the practitioner for opinion and management of Patient A’s obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) under the Better Access to Mental Health Program.

43. On 25 March 2013, Patient A had her first consultation with the practitioner.

44. At the time, the practitioner was 30 years of age, [NOT FOR PUBLICATION].

45. Patient A presented in an affectively stressed and teary manner, was experiencing a marked exacerbation of her OCD and secondary depressive type symptoms, reported low mood, increased teariness, loss of interest in activities and decreased motivation and energy, reported pre-occupation with and difficulties controlling racing negative irrational obsessive thought patterns specifically associated with constantly checking and seeking reassurance that she has not upset someone, and that if she does not perform certain tasks in a particular way then something bad could happen and she has thoughts associated with believing she actually might want something bad to happen which subsequently leads to guilt (especially in relation to her mother, Patient B).

46. The practitioner had 49 consultations with Patient A in total.

47. On 28 March 2013, the practitioner sent a reporting letter to Patient A’s GP.

48. From around 15 May 2013, the practitioner was Patient A’s mother’s treating psychologist.

49. On 27 May 2013, the practitioner sent a reporting letter to Patient A’s GP mentioning OCD symptoms, “ongoing exposure techniques” and the importance of continuing psychological treatment.

50. On 27 May 2013, Patient A’s GP sent a further referral to the practitioner for ongoing management of Patient A’s OCD/anxiety disorder.

51. On 17 December 2013, the practitioner sent a reporting letter to Patient A’s GP, mentioning her OCD symptoms, stress associated with her mother and the importance of continuing psychological treatment.

52. On various dates during 2013-2015, the practitioner continued to have consultations with Patient A’s mother and consultations with Patient A (including multiple sessions when Patient A discussed issues with her mother).

2014

53. On 6 January 2014, Patient A’s GP sent a further referral to the practitioner for ongoing management of Patient A’s OCD/anxiety disorder.

54. On 13 June 2014, the practitioner sent a reporting letter to Patient A’s GP mentioning Patient A’s “affectively flat mood”, recurrence of OCD symptoms, obsessive thoughts and reassurance seeking behaviour regarding her mother and the importance of continuing psychological treatment.

55. On 23 June 2014, Patient A’s GP sent a further referral to the practitioner for ongoing management of Patient A’s OCD/anxiety disorder.

56. On 23 December 2014, the practitioner sent a reporting letter to Patient A’s GP mentioning Patient A’s issues with her mother, her OCD symptoms which “have continued to be exhaustive and prominent” and the importance of continuing psychological treatment.

2015

57. In 2015, the practitioner completed the APS Ethical Decision Making in Psychology course.

58. On 2 April 2015, the practitioner received a letter from Patient A’s treating psychiatrist mentioning her OCD diagnosis, issues with her mother and recommendations including continued psychotherapy.

2016

59. On 18 July 2016, the practitioner sent a reporting letter to Patient A’s GP mentioning Patient A’s anxiety and stress, OCD symptoms, issues with her mother and the importance of continuing psychological treatment.

60. On 12 August 2016, the practitioner received a letter from Patient A’s treating psychiatrist mentioning her OCD symptoms and recommendations including continued psychotherapy.”

61. On 2 September 2016, Patient A’s GP sent a further referral to the practitioner for ongoing management of Patient A.

2017

62. Throughout 2017-2023, the practitioner had access to:

63. monthly supervision meetings at her practice with groups of 4-8 psychologists and regular peer supervision with her psychologist colleagues, including discussions about professional boundaries;

64. professional development courses for psychologists;

65. free legal advice from her professional indemnity insurer;

66. free ethical advice from the APS Professional Advisory Service;

67. online APS resources (including the APS Code of Ethics and APS Ethical Guidelines on Managing Professional Boundaries and Multiple Relationships);

68. online PBA resources (including the PBA Guidelines: Mandatory notifications about registered health practitioners);

69. guidance from her treating psychologist and treating GP.

70. On 22 February 2017, the practitioner sent a reporting letter to Patient A’s GP mentioning her “ongoing difficulties coping with persistent OCD symptoms,” “ongoing body image concerns”, the importance of continuing psychological treatment and suggested Patient A obtain a referral for an additional four sessions for ongoing treatment.

71. On 27 February 2017, Patient A’s GP sent a further referral to the practitioner for ongoing management of Patient A’s OCD and anxiety noting that Patient A “is experiencing quite a lot in her life at the moment and feels that her mood is not as well controlled as usual”.

72. On 8 May 2017 and then 22 May 2017, Patient A attended consultations with the practitioner. Patient A presented in an affectively anxious mood and became teary during the sessions, reported that she has continued to experience OCD type symptoms, reported making errors at work which she attributed to stress and racing cognitions and reported ongoing grief and loss issues regarding the death of a close colleague.

73. On 22 May 2017, the practitioner sent a reporting letter to Patient A’s GP mentioning Patient A’s continued OCD symptoms, ongoing grief and loss, the importance of continuing psychological treatment and suggested Patient A obtain.

74. On 17 or 19 June 2017, Patient A attended a consultation with the practitioner.

75. Sometime after that consultation, the practitioner viewed Patient A as a friend, not as a client.

76. At the time, the practitioner was 34 years of age, [NOT FOR PUBLICATION].

77. The practitioner did not refer Patient A to another psychologist.

78. The practitioner did not suggest Patient A’s GP refer Patient A to another psychologist.

79. On 12 July 2017, Patient A contacted a dance teacher regarding [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] about the practitioner’s daughter.

80. Around 12 or 13 July 2017, the practitioner sent a Facebook friendship request to Patient A, Patient A accepted the request and then the practitioner and Patient A exchanged Facebook messages. The purpose of the friend request on Facebook was to [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]. Patient A met the practitioner’s daughter [NOT FOR PUBLICATION].

81. Around that time, the practitioner felt uncomfortable about being Patient A’s psychologist due to the personal post made by Patient A uploading a photograph of the Practitioner’s daughter [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]. In the post, Patient A had referred to the Practitioner as a close friend.

82. The practitioner had to make contact with Patient A via Facebook as she was still overseas. It was around that time, the practitioner messaged Patient A to say that treatment was to discontinue.

83. Around that time, the practitioner told Patient A that if they were going to pursue their personal relationship, they needed to discontinue their therapeutic relationship.

84. The practitioner did not cease treatment in a clear, professional or ethical manner.

85. The practitioner did not make reasonable arrangements for the continuity of psychological service to Patient A.

86. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION].

87. Around July or August 2017, the practitioner said to Patient A words to the effect that:

88. because they were chatting a bit outside of consultations would Patient A prefer to keep seeing her as a psychologist or would Patient A like to stop seeing her professionally and instead catch up over a drink;

89. the practitioner didn’t want to resume a professional relationship as she enjoyed talking to Patient A and if Patient A wished, Patient A could stop being the practitioner’s client and the practitioner could still offer her mental health assistance;

90. assistance to manage her OCD but instead, as a friend over a drink; or the practitioner suggested that they could still do “therapy” but over a drink.

91. On 31 July 2017, Patient A had an appointment with the practitioner but cancelled the appointment due to the practitioner’s message to be friends.

92. Around 5 or 6 August 2017, about 7 weeks after the last consultation, the practitioner took Patient A out for dinner in Maitland, there was some discussion about previous relationships, and the practitioner was shocked that Patient A knew so much personal information about her. The practitioner was then 34 years old [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]. The practitioner did not discuss starting a friendship with Patient A with any of her psychologist colleagues, any senior psychologist, her practice manager, the APS Professional Advisory Service, her own treating psychologist or her professional indemnity insurer.

93. Before starting a personal relationship with Patient A, the practitioner knew that:

94. Patient A was vulnerable;

95. Patient A suffered OCD;

96. Patient A was seeing a psychiatrist for her OCD;

97. Patient A suffered, body image issues and struggled with family relationship dynamics;

98. Patient A had thoughts of self-harm;

99. Patient A was prescribed anti-psychotic medication for sleep;

100. Patient A trusted the practitioner;

101. it is important to adhere to the APS Code of Conduct;

102. it is important to separate her professional and personal life;

103. it is important to be vigilant in avoiding multiple relationships, addressing ethical dilemmas and possible violations of professional boundaries;

104. it is important to discontinue treatment when there are personal thoughts and feelings which would hinder the effectiveness of the therapeutic relationship;

105. she could refer any patient to another psychologist colleague whenever needed;

106. it is necessary to end treatment before forming a relationship with a client;

107. starting a personal relationship with a former patient would be wrong;

108. starting a personal relationship with Patient A would be contrary to her ethical responsibilities;

109. starting a personal relationship with Patient A would jeopardise their therapeutic relationship.

110. Between early August 2017 and early January 2018, the practitioner breached professional boundaries when she engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with Patient A.

111. From August 2017, the practitioner and Patient A’s friendship continued to develop. Patient A and the practitioner travelled together, exchanged gifts, went out for drinks, dinner and other social outings, and stayed over at each other’s multiple nights per week.

112. Around 21 August 2017, the practitioner gifted Patient A a makeup case with makeup, and on another occasion the practitioner bought them matching Calvin Klein tracksuits.

113. Around 4 September 2017, the practitioner gifted Patient A a ring with two intertwined hearts.

114. On or about 7 September 2017 the practitioner’s aunty passed away and Patient A gave the practitioner a lotus bracelet.

115. Around Patent A’s birthday the practitioner gifted Patient A birthday gifts, flowers, rings, clothes and an expensive cosmetic treatment.

116. Around October 2017, the practitioner told Patient A that she had feelings for her.

117. Around October 2017, Patient A gifted the practitioner a Tiffany & Co necklace with both of their initials engraved on it and Peter Alexander pyjamas.

118. On 19 October 2017, the practitioner sent a discharge letter to Patient A’s GP, including “based on [Patient A’s] excellent level of insight and maintenance of gains regarding her OCD, [Patient A] and I have decided not to schedule any further appointments at this stage”.

119. The practitioner’s description of Patient A in the discharge letter is inconsistent with the pattern of her previous sessions over four years.

120. The practitioner did not mention her personal relationship with Patient A. The practitioner did not refer Patient A to another psychologist.

121. In December 2017, the practitioner and Patient A went away for a weekend to the Gold Coast, shared a bed, hugged and lay beside each other. During this trip, the practitioner told Patient A she was finding it difficult to stop feeling attracted towards Patient A and wanted more.

122. Around this time, when the practitioner and Patient A were lying on a bed at the practitioner’s parents’ house, Patient A discussed intrusive distressing thoughts about developing feelings for the practitioner, the practitioner reassured the practitioner these were due to her OCD, the practitioner jokingly told Patient A she could perform exposure therapy and sexual acts on Patient A to see if she liked it to help with her thoughts.

2018

97. In early January 2018, after spending a lot of personal time together, the friendship transitioned to a sexual relationship. On around 4 January 2018, about 28 weeks after the last consultation, at Patient A’s mother’s house, the practitioner and Patient A kissed and the practitioner started touching Patient A then performed consensual sexual acts on Patient A for the first time.

98. Before starting a sexual relationship with Patient A, the practitioner did not first explore with a senior psychologist the possibility that Patient A may be vulnerable and at risk of exploitation and did not encourage the Patient A to seek independent counselling on the matter.

99. Before starting a sexual relationship with Patient A, the practitioner knew that:

100. there needed to be a 2 year gap between ending any patient relationship and starting any sexual relationship;

101. starting a sexual relationship with Patient A before two years had expired would breach the APS Code of Conduct;

102. Patient A had never had a sexual relationship with a woman before;

103. Patient A was feeling confused about her feelings.

104. Between early January 2018 to 8 May 2023, the practitioner breached professional boundaries when she engaged in an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with Patient A.

105. During the personal and sexual relationship with Patient A:

106. the practitioner felt guilt;

107. the practitioner knew that Patient A could report her;

108. the practitioner knew that she could report herself (by submitting a self-notification to APRA);

109. the practitioner did not report herself;

110. the practitioner continued to work as a psychologist, continued to supervise two internship students and three clinical registrar psychologists.

111. Sometime during the personal and sexual relationship, Patient A told the practitioner that she had self-harmed or was struggling with self-harm and the practitioner said it was an unhelpful choice, that Patient A was an adult and responsible for her own choices.

112. On Patient A’s birthday, the practitioner organised her birthday party and gave her gifts.

113. On 28 January 2019 and 15 April 2019, the practitioner completed Supervisor Training for Psychologists.

114. Around October 2019, the practitioner and Patient A travelled to Bali for a psychology professional development conference, the practitioner gifted Patient A bikinis to wear in Bali after Patient A reported she had nothing to wear.

2020

106. During 2020, the practitioner and Patient A’s relationship was unstable, with a number of break ups.

107. Around July 2020, the practitioner started having psychology sessions with a treating psychologist, about every 3-4 weeks, including some joint sessions with Patient A, including discussing boundary issues.

108. The practitioner did not tell her treating psychologist that Patient A was a former client.

109. Around October 2020, Patient A moved in to live at the practitioner’s house and the practitioner agreed to have a baby together.

2021

110. Around 2021, Patient A fell pregnant but lost the baby, the practitioner collected Patient A from the hospital.

2022

111. In September 2022, Patient A started consulting a new psychologist for treatment of anxiety and OCD. This was on the advice and guidance of the practitioner.

2023

112. Around May 2023, the practitioner ended her relationship with Patient A, who then moved out of the practitioner’s house.

2024

113. On 12 April 2024, Patient A disclosed information about the practitioner to her new treating psychologist, Dr Duski Tadic. The information was contained in a document sent to Dr Tadic that day which relevantly stated (some paragraph breaks added for ease of understanding):

“My last visit with [the practitioner] was 19 June 2017. In visits leading up to my final visit she told me she felt a connection with me, that she felt more like a big sister to me. … she was 34. …

I [later] received a Facebook friend request from Lisa Phillips … . From this several messages were exchanged and Lisa said she didn’t want to resume a professional relationship as she enjoyed talking to me, and if I wished, I could stop being her client and she could still offer me mental health assistance to manage my OCD but instead, as a friend over some drinks of gin.

However, she said my Mum would also have to stop seeing her as a client. I was excited to have gained a new friend, my mum however was disappointed to end her treatment.

On our first catch-up which was dinner out, she picked me up at the home I shared with my mother. At dinner, Lisa disclosed to me that she had separated from her husband after cheating on him with a woman [NOT FOR PUBLICATION], who had since shut down the relationship.

She also disclosed recreational drug use. Following this, I think we had one more dinner and we went back to her home to watch tv. … Following this, on several occasions I would go to her home for drinks and we would become very intoxicated. We would sleep in the same bed and hug and I asked her if this was inappropriate for a friendship and she said it was normal as she did this with all of her friends. …

I had never had a friendship like this but I was enjoying the closeness so I trusted her.

One day she was picking me up a bottle of makeup from the shops as a favour and instead gifted me an expensive makeup case with the makeup in it. I was shocked but thought how lucky I was to have a caring friend. She then bought us matching Calvin Klein tracksuits. It was my birthday … and for the entire week leading up to it she gave me presents each day. Several rings, clothes and when I went to pay for an expensive cosmetic treatment I was getting myself, got to the counter to be told by the receptionist it had already been paid for. …

Lisa then said she had received messages from another gay woman trying to date her. I was upset as I didn’t want to miss out on spending time with her. in October, I was out for dinner with a friend when Lisa started texting me quotes about love. I asked her why and she told me she had feelings for me. I was devastated as it would impact on our friendship but desperately wanted to continue the friendship. …

Lisa and I were laying on the bed hugging when she said as a joke we could do exposure therapy and I could perform sexual acts on her and see what it was like.

I did not. However, on January 42018, Lisa and I were in bed together at my mum’s home and she had put pillows in between us to sleep because she felt too ‘tempted’ to be sexual towards me. But then we kissed. She then started touching my breasts through my shirt and my vagina through my underpants. She asked if she could go underneath my underpants and I said no. I later said yes as I felt ok to explore this, and she performed several sexual acts on me consentually [sic – consensually]. …

From this, stemmed a sexual and emotional relationship …

In June, I decided to be Lisa’s official girlfriend and told my Mother which didn’t go well. She was also uncomfortable about her former psychologist being in her home and in a relationship with her daughter. …

Throughout this time, Lisa knew I desperately wanted children and she already had three older children of her own, and she said we would fill the house with more babies, as many as we could. I had confided in my Mum arguments Lisa and I had. Lisa told me i wasn’t to speak to my Mum about these issues. …

After saying I was telling my Mum too much information, she broke up with me in Nov 2018. … She told me her office manager … and her had created a plan in case I reported her for professional misconduct in this time. It was something that had never ever crossed my mind. I wasn’t aware there was even a code against being with former patients until she told me….

She instilled tremendous guilt in me for going on the date and the negative things I told my friends about her treatment of me, and I was pressured to stop speaking to those who had said negative things about her.

One friend had suggested the relationship with Lisa was manipulative and when I told Lisa, I was encouraged to end that friendship.

At this time I sought advice and treatment from Psychiatrist Dr Gail Brasch but pretended Lisa’s name was “Sarah’ so she didnt link the two people and report her. I needed assistance for my thoughts of maybe being straight or wanting to be with other people. She placed me on higher and higher doses of Fluvoxamine and another antipsychotic for my thoughts surrounding our relationship and told me ‘Sarah’ was controlling and manipulative. Lisa had said from very early in our relationship we would have children together, but now, she said she didn’t want to have a child with me, breaking up with me again in August 2020.

I once again tried to move on, however she came back in November 2020 saying she would have a child and ensued in a sexual relationship again until I asked was it just to keep me and she said yes, so we once again split and I was shattered. I blocked her from all contact with me, until emails and flowers arrived at my mother’s house begging for me to give her the opportunity to give me the life I deserve: I met with her and agreed to move in together properly (I had been staying four nights a week) and that / would have a child and possibly be its sole parent, but still be in a relationship with her. …

Since [my son] was born I have done every appointment by myself and financially supported him solo. I was then told in our home, I didn’t do the housework correctly, my clothes were not suitable and ugly and my family was negative. Lisa was disappointed my Mum didn’t make enough effort with her children and refused contact with my family and treated me poorly for seeing them. She placed restrictions on when I could see them and for how long, she forbade my son from being babysat by my mother and attempted to prevent me from going to her home. I pretty much cut contact with my family because I couldn’t cope with the backlash. Lisa picked a lot of my clothes for me because I was too anxious as she would often say they were ugly. I was completely isolated.

Lisa and her children went to Bali in April 2023.

On May 9 after returning home she told me she was no longer happy. She didn’t want to be with me any more so my son and I moved out. I then received a text from Lisa saying she and her children had chosen to never see him again, which she then later retracted asking to see my son. …

I allowed this visitation for less than two months as a friend of my son.

This ceased due to her constantly not making herself available, cancelling visits, requesting to leave him with her teenage children and my concerns for her stability and mental health. She has not asked to see him since June 2023 We have no contact. Lisa has since disclosed publicly her new relationship with another, much younger married woman, who left her wife and moved into our house with her. …

I have been left temporarily homeless and have lost my self worth, my self confidence and my security both emotional and financial. I was also seeing Lisa for disordered eating and self harm. Despite knowing this history, throughout our relationship she told me I was a ‘fucking psycho’ that if l was fat she wouldn’t be in a relationship with me, and that it was my decision to self harm. She told me she was glad I got botox so I didn’t end up like my Mum whose face was ‘fucking disgusting’ …

This behaviour has detrimentally affected my mental health. Due to our previous relationship as Psych and patient, I had complete trust in Lisa and as a result everything she said about me I believed, every advice she gave me regarding friendships and family I followed which left me completely isolated and manipulated. Now I feel the person I trusted more than anyone in the world thinks I am worthless. I constantly clean my home as I was told this was a reason she left me, in the hope of proving to both myself and her I am worthy of her. I have no confidence in who I am as a person as I was told I was negative. l do know however, now removed from the situation, that I am a brilliant Mum. I do live in constant fear she will act out of revenge and try and seek visitation of my son…”

114. On 21 April 2024, [Dr Tadic] submitted a complaint to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA).

115. Relevantly, the complaint stated:

“I had been seeing [Patient A] (my client) since September 2022 for treatment of anxiety and OCD. During the sessions [Patient A] spoke a lot about her partner Lisa who she was living with from the time that she started treatment with me. [Patient A] had shared that Lisa was also a Psychologist. However, it wasn’t until [Patient A] and Lisa separated, in December 2023, that [Patient A] disclosed to me that Lisa was her Psychologist before they became romantically involved. The timeline of events was not clear to me until [Patient A] wrote and shared the attached document with me (see attached). I believe this documents serious mistreatment and abuse of therapist power by Dr Lisa M Phillips. Please note, my client [Patient A] is extremely anxious and distressed about me making this report and has asked that the letter not be shared with Lisa.”

116. Around April 2024, the practitioner sold her business then continued working as a psychologist at the practice as a contractor.

117. On 23 July 2024, Patient A consulted her new GP who then submitted a complaint. The complaint relevantly stated:

“Summary (consult notes attached with further details) – [Patient A] reports a sexual relationship with Lisa that occurred soon after their therapeutic relationship. Lisa was her psychologist 2012 - 2017 - Lisa advised [Patient A] and her mum [Patient B] to stop seeing her professionally with the intention of pursuing a relationship. – [Patient A] feels she was cohersed [sic – coerced] into the relationship - Significant emotional abuse and cohersive [sic - coercive] behaviours which developed gradually as an extension of the power imbalance of the psychologist-patient relationship … - Staff member’s (reception staff and other psychologists) at Lisa’s practice were aware of their relationship and never provided support or made reports. The above events were disclosed to me today.”

118. Around 28 May 2024, the Commission notified the practitioner about the complaint submitted by Patient A’s new treating psychologist.

119. Sometime after receiving the complaint, around 2 June 2024, the practitioner enrolled in the APS Ethical Decision making in Psychology Webinar.

120. Sometime after receiving the complaint, around 4 June 2024, the practitioner enrolled in the APS From Burnout to Brilliance Webinar.

121. Sometime after receiving the complaint, around 5 June 2024, the practitioner mentioned the complaint to her treating psychologist.

122. Sometime after receiving the complaint, the practitioner mentioned the complaint to her practice manager and agreed not to commence treatment with any new patients.

123. The practitioner continued working as a psychologist at the practice and continued supervision of junior psychologists.

124. The practitioner continued working as a psychologist at the practice and continued supervision of junior psychologists.

125. Sometime after receiving the complaint, around 11 June 2024, the practitioner enrolled in the APS Managing the risks of multiple relationships and multiple clients Webinar, completed on 28 August 2024.

126. Sometime after receiving the complaint, around 14 June 2024, the practitioner started supervision sessions with a counsellor.

127. On 14 June 2024, the practitioner responded to the Commission’s letter to her of 28 May 2024, in which the Commission notified the practitioner of Dr Tadic’s complaint. Relevantly, the practitioner stated that:

“16 It is important that I highlight more about my personality and relationship history. I acknowledge that when I meet a new friend and/or partner, I am all in and am quick to establish trust to form a bond. Once I am in its fast and intense until a period of stablisation and things settle. I love to buy gifts, I get excited and almost revert to my teenage years. I am on a high, I am excited for the adventures and fun. I love to make everyone in my life feel special, spoilt and l am generous in doing so. I become very focused and put a lot of time and energy into these new friendships/relationships. I still have some of my closest and best friends out of friendships that started this way and so in moral circumstances I guess people see who I am and it is okay. …

Lead up to the Complaint

18. I first met [Patient A] in the capacity as a client on 25 March 2013. She engaged in 48 sessions up until 19 June 2017 on a fortnightly to monthly basis with most of these sessions being partially funded under the better Access to Mental Health Care scheme through a referral from her GP. On occasion she would attend privately if she had not been able to attain her review plan in between consultations. I recall that during the therapy I treated [Patient A] for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). In my professional opinion when [Patient A] was a client, she also suffered body image issues and struggled with family relationship dynamics. …

19. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

20. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]. After she met my daughter, l felt uncomfortable about the continuation of treatment. I spoke with some colleagues about this and decided it would be best to cease treatment, supportive of this decision was that [Patient A] had been stable in the lead up to and at the time of our final consult.

21. I recall that at the time of termination of treatment I had encouraged [Patient A] to continue to see her psychiatrist and then at various points in our personal relationship, which I delve into later in this response, I did suggest [Patient A] see a psychologist and she did with two psychologists over the course of the relationship. This reinforces the fact that I viewed her as a friend/partner not as a client once therapy ended. On reflection, I can acknowledge that a clearer discussion and plan with [Patient A] about ongoing psychological treatment with a different treating psychologist would have been advantageous at the time of treatment ceasing with me.

22 The relationship with [Patient A] commenced as a friendship. …

23. My personal thoughts on [Patient A] having met my daughter, ceasing treatment and then learning that [Patient A] knew very personal details about me were all factors that led to a clear and significant disconnection from perceiving or thinking in any capacity about her as a former client.

24 As set out above in paragraph 16, I acknowledge that I am very quick to form a friendship/relationship. This is clearly very different and hard to fathom and has created significant issues in relation to forming a friendship let alone a relationship with a former client. I have a history of making intense contact and lots of interactions early in friendships/relationships. This is a personal pattern of mine one which, I have spoken about and have proactively addressed and continue to work on understanding why that has been the case for me.

25. Please note friendships and relationships alike have initially been flavoured initially with the exact same intensity. Some friends think I have a chemical reaction that l am seeking fulfillment or excitement from the new novel friendships.

26. On reflection I realise that the intensity and speed at which a friendship developed with [Patient A] given her history of being a former client was unhelpful…”

128. In her letter, the practitioner then discusses stressors in her own life including having a terminally ill aunt, and her “ongoing personal guilt, grief and shame regarding [her] own sexual identity after leaving the father of her children”. The practitioner states:

“28. … These were all relevant and I reflectively acknowledge | had an unhelpful lapse of professional judgement and subsequently made unhelpful choices in my personal life. This is regardless of the history of the therapeutic relationship with [Patient A]. I admit that the decisions I made at the time were poor.”

129. The practitioner then states:

“34. I had never been in a same sex relationship until [Patient A] At the time of discontinuation of treatment, [Patient A] had a boyfriend and it was far from my mind in any way that our future would involve any relations past a friendship.

35. I recall at the time of the transition from friendship to a sexual relationship, in early January 2018, with [Patient A] that I felt confused, vulnerable and uncertain. [Patient A] would go back and forth between wanting to be with me or wanting to be heterosexual and back on online dating sites. She identified that uncertainty regarding her own sexuality, and her mother’s expression of not supporting a same sex relationship impacted on her decision. I did not personally feel like I held a position of power in the decisions regarding whether our relationship would progress beyond a friendship. I felt quite the contrary.

36. The relationship was on and off again for 6 years. There were some really happy times, there were times of normality and then a lot of difficult times. I felt that the difficult times occurred as a result of external factors in the relationship with [Patient A] as opposed to something that had occurred between us. We broke up at the end of 2019 for 4-5 weeks and again in 2020 for a few months and when we rekindled the relationship [Patient A] expressed that one of her conditions was that would support her having a baby. This was something that consented to as had a lot of guilt associated with having my own three children and that [Patient A] miss out on this.”

130. In relation to her termination of Patient A’s treatment and the “connection allegation”, the practitioner states:

“46. In terms of my clear and strong professional boundaries and my unwillingness to breach these with any client I am confident I upheld these for the duration of [Patient A’s] treatment. I remember [Patient A] emailed the practice for me to assist with a bullying program etc she was implementing and wanted to meet me at a local McDonalds. In response my reception staff responded and said that would not be possible due to [Patient A] being a client.”

131. In relation to gift purchases, the practitioner states:

“51. As set out above, a personal trait of mine is that I am generous with my time, energy and finances. It is typical for me to offer to pay at social outings, I spoil my kids for Christmas and birthdays. I feel good when I can see other people’s smiles or excitement when they get something they love. Yes, I brought [Patient A] birthday gifts and yes it was probably unnecessary but that’s part of me, Lisa not me the psychologist. That was not a manipulation tool or a power play that was me. have never gifted anything to a client nor would I. In my mind the therapeutic relationship had ended back in June by the time it was [patient A’s] birthday … when there was no thought of her being a client.

52. I am aware that gift giving is in breach of the APS Code of Ethics…”

132. As to sexual acts with Patient A, the practitioner says that those acts were consensual, and that:

“59. My perception was that feelings developed for us both and on a personal level I appeared suddenly and in a whirlwind fashion. I deny my feelings or engagement in any sexual acts was in any capacity based on exposure therapy for her OCD or to be controlling or powerful. I am deeply remorseful that [Patient A’s] perception is contrary to this.

60. The endless times we were intimate and then [Patient A] would state no I can’t do this my mum won’t accept me being gay and going back to no sexual intimacy and back on dating sites with boys did a lot of damage to my self-worth. Looking back on this I too was newly identifying as gay. I remember when I kissed a girl as part of a dare in November 2017 when I was away with a group of friends, [Patient A] became exceptionally upset and distressed by this.”

133. The practitioner denies any breach of her confidentially obligations in relation to Patient B, or that she formed a plan with work colleagues regarding a potential complaint to the Council about her conduct.

134. At the conclusion of this 20 page letter to the Commission, commencing at p 15, the practitioner offers a “Reflection”. She says she is “deeply regretful” for commencing a relationship with a former client, that she has learned from this “isolated breach”, and recommenced her own psychological sessions with a psychologist. She says that the “adverse circumstances” in her personal life at the time “impacted” her sense of judgement regarding the progression from a therapeutic friendship to a personal relationship.

135. The practitioner was saddened and felt “so helpless” that Patient A reporting her conduct to her psychologist was made “with full awareness and insight that a report would be made”, as:

“123. … I am more than willing to take responsibility that in terms of the ethical statements regarding professional boundaries I can see I have breached this. However, I did not ever view [Patient A] as my client after the therapy ended. So, every behaviour, decision, reaction or conversation was me. Sometimes not the best versions of me, but I am human, I felt guilty about my kids having a split home I was heart broken about my aunty passing and the impact that this had on my family, I encouraged [Patient A] to seek support psychologically when issues started to arise.

124. [Patient A] and I had a tumultuous relationship that was on and off again. At any point [Patient A] could have reported me and she made me very aware of this. …

125. The outcome of this letter, the outcome of my career is now out of my control. I am genuinely relieved that the emotional manipulation, control and weight that this individual, [Patient A] has placed on me for years and that my family and friends helplessly watched for the entire time is over. [Patient A] can’t get me in any other way. …

126. The fact that [Patient A] viewed me as her therapist once our therapeutic relationship ended is not acceptable and I take full responsibility for the choice I made to establish a friendship and then relationship with her after therapy ended to be damaging to her.

127. I have realised that it does not matter where my head space or intentions were at. That regardless of that, reading [Patient A’s] account, she clearly never saw me as a partner or wanted to be with me and made her choices based on her perception of control and me abusing my position of power. am deeply saddened by this and sorry for the impact our opposing perceptions have had on her. I have not had a personal relationship with any former clients since the discontinuation of therapy [Patient A]. I am confident that my lapse in professional judgement has been an isolated incident and I have implemented being my client. I am deeply sorry for this and reinforces [sentence incomplete in original]. …

131. Please note that from my perception the relationship with [Patient A] was based on love. Regardless of my intentions and motives, I acknowledge that | breached the APS Code of Ethics and am deeply remorseful for this. Combined with the fact that [Patient A] did not see our relationship outside of the therapeutic lens. I repressed my sexuality for such a long time and I had a significant life stress with my terminal aunty and I believe that these factors have contributed to my lapse in judgement and misconduct.”

136. On 23 July 2024, Patient A’s GP, Dr Natasha Chapman, made a complaint to AHPRA about the practitioner’s conduct. Attached to the complaint were Dr Chapman’s consultation notes for Patient A recorded on 23 July 2024. Relevantly, the notes stated:

“Lisa was [Patient A’s] treating psychologist from 2012 to 2017, primarily for the treatment of a severe eating disorder. [Patient A] reports Lisa’s interventions saved her. Lisa was also [Patient B’s] psychologist during that time.

In 2017 [Patient A] [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] approached admin at Greenhills Psychology [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]. She then received a Facebook message from Lisa and they met up [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]. During that meeting which occured [sic – occurred] in August 2017 they reflected that they would be good friends and Lisa suggested they cease their professional relationship and purse being friends. She suggested they could still do ‘therapy ‘ but over a glass of wine. Requested [Patient B] also stop seeing Lisa.

After that dinner they spent increasing amounts of time together and Lisa would frequently buy [Patient A] expensive gifts. On multiple occasions Lisa expressed romantic feelings towards [Patient A]. [Patient A] responded saying is not attracted to women and didn’t feel that way. Friendship and gifts continued.

They first spent the night together on 01/04/2018. In the lead up to that [Patient A] told Lisa she was feeling confused about her feelings. Lisa told her that it was her OCD making her overthink everything and that the feelings were there. Told [Patient A] that a relationship with her would be ‘exposure therapy ‘

The relationship was characterised by emotional manipulation and controlling behaviours

- Frequently belittling [Patient A] and sayign [sic – saying] she was the only one with answers.

- Cut her off from friends and family by labeling [sic – labelling] their behaviours as narcissitic [sic – narcissistic] and controlling. - She would tell [Patient A] she wasn’t allowed to tell certain people about any conflict in their relationship and the list gradually got longer.

- Frequent negative comments about her weight and appearance

- Freuent [sic – frequent] gaslighting and denial of previous events.

- Told [Patient A] never to list her as next-of-kin, especially at Lorn Surgery

- [Patient A] either avoided the question of gave a false name when asked about her partner.

There was multiple break-ups typically due to [Patient A] breaking one of Lisa’s ‘rules ‘. Following this [Patient A] would try and move on (including dating) which would result in hysterical calls from Lisa and manipulating her to get back together. E.g ‘the whole idea of a breakup is for personal growth and to fix things so we can get back together, not to move on ‘.

They broke up in 2020 due to Lisa not wanting a baby. Following this break up [Patient A] cut all contact for some time. She then had contact form Lisa saying she had thought about things and did want to be with [Patient A] while she had a baby.

- Didn’t want to be invovled [sic – involved] in the IVF process (financially or any decision making)

- Told [Patient A] she picked the wrong donor and the baby would be ugly. Bellittled [sic – Belittled] her to the point [Patient A] considered termination.

- Didn’t want to do any mum duties – but was happy to show him off to her friends when it suited.

…

Soon after their break up (which Lisa said was because [Patient A] got fat after having a baby and she was no longer attracted to her) Lisa moved her personal trainer in (who was previous [sic] married until an affair with Lisa).”

137. On 27 September 2024, Patient B's psychologist prepared a statement for the Commission’s investigation into the practitioner’s conduct. Patient A’s mother, Patient B, had first seen Patient B's psychologist on 6 April 2023. Relevantly, Patient B's psychologist stated:

“… [Patient B] stated the following:

• She had been seeing a Psychologist and her daughter was also seeing the same psychologist.

• The Psychologist asked them to stop seeing her as she wanted to start a friendship with her daughter.

• This relationship developed and [Patient A] moved in with the Psychologist and became very controlling. [Patient B] felt she turned her daughter against her and relationship became very strained.

• [Patient B] found out her daughter had a child through IVF. [Patient B] stated that the psychologist didn’t want another child as she had older children and stated her daughter had limited financial resources within the relationship. Her daughter was asking for money from [Patient B] to assist raising her child.

• [Patient A] was denying access to her grandchild. [Patient B] felt this was because she did not welcome the Psychologist and her children into her house and treat her children as her own grandchildren. [Patient B] stated that it ‘felt too weird.

• Things became worse with this relationship and [Patient B] was hoping to be able to have contact with her grandson.”

138. On 4 September 2024, the held a hearing under s 150 of the National Law.

139. On 8 October 2024, the Council published its decision. The Council decided that it was appropriate to suspend the practitioner’s registration immediately. Having set out the details of Dr Tadic’s complaint, and Dr Chatman’s notes, and the practitioner’s response to the complaint, the Council relevantly stated that:

“4.1 The current complaints allege serious professional boundary violations, primarily related to the ending of a four-year therapeutic relationship and the very quick development of a friendship, with the relationship becoming sexual by early January 2018. This then continued, with two periods of separation, until May 2023.

4.2 Whilst there were no previous complaints, issues which emerged in the course of this Hearing related to further boundary violations, with Miss Phillips treating both [Patient A] and her mother separately over a two-year period from 2013 to 2015, and in response to further problems which occurred in the course of [Patient A] and Miss Phillips’ relationship, Miss Phillips adopting the role of counsellor/mediator between [Patient A] and her mother.

4.3 Further issues which emerged related to information in the notes that Miss Phillips requested further treatment sessions for [Patient A] as late as May 2017. However, by 19 June 2017, she suddenly terminated the therapy and with no letter to the GP about this until October of that year. At that time, [Patient A] was described as affectively stable, which is not consistent with the pattern of the previous sessions over four years.

…

4.6 If the totality of these concerns and in particular, the sexual boundary crossing, are true in full or in part, it means that Miss Phillips’ behaviour and practice pose unacceptable and immediate risks to the health and safety of the public. The nature of the risk is that if Miss Phillips were to engage in behaviours similar to those alleged with other particularly vulnerable clients, then their health, wellbeing and trust in the therapeutic process would be seriously damaged. This in turn could potentially result in a significant exacerbation underlying mental health disorders and distress, leading to significant and potentially treatment-resistant or irreversible outcomes. Of note in this regard is that [Patient A] has apparently seen two other psychologists since, one of whom has reported this matter to the HCCC.

4.7 A complaint has been made by [Patient A]’s treating psychologist, who alleges serious mistreatment and abuse of therapist power by Miss Phillips. [Patient A] has was extremely anxious and distressed about the psychologist making the report, to the point that the letter prepared by [Patient A] was not to be shared with Miss Phillips, nor have we been able to see that. A complaint was also made by the GP, describing the relationship and [Patient A]’s feeling that she was coerced into the relationship, with significant emotional abuse and coercive behaviours which developed gradually as an extension of the power imbalance of the psychologist/patient relationship…

4.8 These are extremely serious allegations, which require investigation and lead to the conclusion that Miss Phillips’ behaviour and practice pose unacceptable and immediate risks to the health and safety of the public.

iv Do other aspects of the practitioner*’s practice raise concerns of immediate and unacceptable risks to the health or safety of the public?*

4.9 Yes. Whilst Miss Phillips describes currently not taking on any new clients, her plans are to continue working as a consultant in the practice purchased by a colleague and to continue supervision/training of junior psychologists. The delegates are very concerned about these plans for a number of reasons, including because Miss Phillips showed little appreciation of the power imbalance in the relationship between herself and [Patient A]. Whilst she stated very firmly that the therapeutic relationship had ended on 19 June 2017, she showed little awareness that this decision may not have been reciprocated by [Patient A], nor was there understanding of the particular vulnerability of [Patient A] and the impact of grooming, as well as the impact of their relationship on others and the multiple relationships which developed. Miss Phillips failed to self-report, particularly when various threats had allegedly been made over time to report her.

v. Does the practitioner have the necessary standard of practice, knowledge and understanding so as not to pose a risk to the health or safety of the public?

4.10 No, in relation to the issues related to this complaint.”

140. On 12 October 2024, the Commission informed the practitioner that it had concluded its investigation, and the evidence indicated that practitioner had engaged in improper and unethical conduct in the practice of her profession as psychologist. The Commission indicated that it proposed to refer the matter to the Director of Proceedings under s 39(1)(a) of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW) (HCC Act) for determination of whether to prosecute a complaint before a professional disciplinary body.

141. The purpose of the Commission’s letter was to inform the practitioner of the substance of the grounds for the proposed action, and to allow the practitioner to make submissions under s 40 of the HCC Act.

142. The letter then relevantly states:

“Submissions provided by you to both the Psychology Council of New South Wales (the Council) and the Commission (Attachments 3 and 2 respectively) include an admission by you that you engaged in a sexual relationship with a former patient, [Patient A], seven months after your therapeutic relationship with her concluded (17 June 2017).

The Australian Psychological Society Code of Ethics (the Code of Ethics) states the following:

C.4.3. Psychologists:

(a) do not engage in sexual activity with a client or anybody who is closely related to one of their clients;

(b) do not engage in sexual activity with a former client, or anybody who is closely related to one of their former clients, within two years after terminating the professional relationship with the former client;

(c) who wish to engage in sexual activity with former clients after a period of two years from the termination of the service, first explore with a senior psychologist the possibility that the former client may be vulnerable and at risk of exploitation and encourage the former client to seek independent counselling on the matter; and

(d) do not accept as a client a person with whom they have engaged in sexual activity.

By your own admissions, you breached Clause C.4.3 of the Code of Ethics when you entered into a sexual relationship with [Patient A] within the two-year period after the therapeutic relationship was terminated. You did not seek advice or guidance from a senior psychologist regarding the possibility that [Patient A] may be vulnerable and at risk of exploitation.

Accordingly, you have failed to maintain the Code of Ethic’s general principle of Integrity. This reflects that you have limited insight into the fact that there is a high level of trust intrinsic to your therapeutic relationships due to the inherent vulnerability of your clients (including former clients); and that that trust ought not be violated by engaging in sexual relationships with said vulnerable (former) clients until the criteria outlined in the Code of Ethics has been met. That is the very reason the criteria exists.”

143. The practitioner responded by letter dated 19 November 2024. Generally, the response was largely repetitive of what the practitioner had stated in her letter to the Commission’s letter of 28 May 2024.

144. As to allegations regarding “ending treatment and becoming friends and suggestions of this being of a grooming nature”, the practitioner stated:

“I have already acknowledged and take full responsibility for the lack of professionalism and lack of structure regarding the way I terminated treatment. As previously mentioned, I was caught up in the excitement of my daughter’s success and came home from America dealing with the decline in my aunty’s health due to her cancer diagnosis. I may have referenced the fact that [Patient B] would not be able to see me again. However, I am surprised that would have as given our [Patient A] had had continued treatment due to the conflict of interest. I may have worded my message in a non-direct way as whilst I knew that within myself, I couldn’t see [Patient A] as a client after her meeting my daughter and asking for a photograph with her and referring to me as her”

145. In the final section of her letter, titled “Closing Statement”, the practitioner states:

“59. I feel as a suspended psychologist that it is important for me to acknowledge that [Patient A] sought psychological assistance during our relationship when required. This is evident in my prior submissions. However, I do not recall that she was as unwell as she currently presents. [Patient A] appears to have deteriorated more so since I commenced a relationship with [Patient A]. I hope [Patient A] seeks the appropriate treatment she needs and heals from the position she is in at the moment so she can enjoy life and be the best mother to [my child]

60. I am in the process of selling my home, I am not working as a psychologist and have gained alternate employment. This is not a dress rehearsal and I do not want to invest any further time or energy into my past relationship with [Patient A]. I take full responsibility for the breach in the timeframe. I did not have any feelings for her and I had no intention or thought process of a relationship with her at the time of ceasing therapy. I agree that I dealt with the termination of treatment very poorly. I am willing to face any consequences deemed appropriate for these actions. I do not believe I am a risk to my clients and/or to the public, and I genuinely hope that I can resume my role as a psychologist at some point in the future.”

Stage 1

146. The practitioner has admitted both Complaints One and Two, and the particulars underlying those Complaints.

147. Independently of those admissions, on the basis of the admitted Agreed Facts and the evidence before us, we are satisfied that both Complaints are established, that is:

148. Complaint One is established, in that the respondent is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct pursuant to s 139B(1)(l) of the National Law;

149. Complaint Two is established, in that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct pursuant to s 139E of the National Law.

150. There were two Particulars to Complaint One, which are set out above.

151. As to Particular (1), the Commission correctly submits that the practitioner’s conduct was:

152. improper because she started a personal relationship with a vulnerable patient, only about seven weeks after the last consultation, before Patient A was discharged to her GP, and without referring her to another psychologist, which is a breach of the standards of conduct that would be expected of registered psychologist;

153. unethical because the practitioner breached the Code of Ethics by failing to make reasonable arrangements for the continuity of service provision when she was no longer able to deliver the psychological service.

154. As to Particular (2), the Commission correctly submits that the practitioner’s conduct was:

155. improper because she started a sexual relationship with a vulnerable patient, only about 28 weeks after the last consultation, which is not in accordance with the propriety of behaviour expected of a registered psychologist;

156. unethical because she clearly breached the Code of Ethics by engaging in sexual activity with a former client within two years after terminating the professional relationship, she failed to first explore with a senior psychologist the possibility that Patient A may be vulnerable and at risk of exploitation and she failed to encourage Patient A to seek independent counselling.

157. Complaint Two is admitted by the practitioner. That is to say, she admits that she engaged in an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with Patient A which is serious enough to justify suspension or cancellation of her registration.

158. The Commission makes submissions running to several pages, which culminate in this final proposition, which we accept.

159. Starting a sexual relationship is sufficiently serious to justify cancellation, because the practitioner’s conduct:

160. quickly escalated from a personal relationship to a sexual relationship much faster than the stipulated two year minimum period;

161. took advantage of a vulnerable patient. There is an inherent imbalance of power between a psychologist and any patient, the practitioner knew that Patient A was vulnerable, Patient A suffered OCD, body image issues and thoughts of self harm, the practitioner used her professional position as Patient A’s psychologist to first establish a friendship, the practitioner then gave Patient A personal gifts (makeup, a ring with two intertwined hearts and flowers), the practitioner then disclosed her personal feelings of attraction, the practitioner then discussed Patient A’s OCD thoughts and joked that she could perform exposure therapy and sexual acts on Patient A to see if she liked it to help with those thoughts, the practitioner then started performing sexual acts on Patient A;

162. posed an obvious risk of harm to Patient A; breaching professional boundaries jeopardises the therapeutic relationship and poses a risk of emotional harm;

163. involved obvious continued breaches of professional boundaries, a sexual relationship which continued over many years.

Stage 2

154. We turn now to the appropriate protective order.

155. We note that the practitioner agrees with the Commission’s proposal of cancellation of her registration and a one year period before she may seek to be registered again.

Relevant principles

156. The Commission submits, and we accept that the relevant principles be considered include:

157. it is not necessary to make a finding that the practitioner is probably permanently unfit to practise before registration can be cancelled: Chen v Health Care Complaints Commission [2017] NSWCA 186, per Basten JA at [14] and [20] and per Payne JA at [67]-[69];

158. whether the conduct is sufficiently serious to warrant cancellation is a matter of degree and judgment: Sabag v Health Care Complaints Commission [2001] NSWCA 411 at [82];

159. cancellation may, in serious cases, be required to adequately achieve the objectives of minimising the risk of recurrence and of deterring other practitioners from engaging in such conduct and thus maintaining public confidence in the profession: Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield [1997] 41 NSWLR 630 (Litchfield); Re Dr Parajuli [2010] NSWMT 3 at [32]; Saville v Health Care Complaints Commission [2006] NSWCA 298 at [45]; Prakash v Health Care Complaints Commission [2006] NSWCA 153 (Prakash) at [64] (Santow JA) and [101] (Basten JA);

160. the Tribunal must consider the maintenance of standards of the profession, preservation of public confidence in the profession and, more broadly, the protection of the community: Prakash at [91];

161. public protection is achieved by ensuring that only health practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practice in a competent and ethical manner are registered: National Law, s 3(2)(a);

162. deterring others from engaging in similar conduct is a necessary part of maintaining the standards of the profession and thereby ensuring public safety and faith in the profession: Litchfiel**d at 637;

163. protecting the health and safety of the public is not confined to protecting current or potential patients but includes protecting the public from similar misconduct of others and upholding public confidence in the standards of the profession: Health Care Complaints Commission v Do [2014] NSWCA 307 at [35];

164. the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is primarily protective, not punitive: Litchfield at 637;

165. it is unavoidable that protective orders may be incidentally punitive*:* Lee v Health Care Complaints Commission [2012] NSWCA 80 (Lee) at [20] and [31].

Commission’s submissions

157. Applying those principles, the Commission submitted that:

158. cancellation of the practitioner’s registration with a one year non-review period was appropriate because the practitioner’s conduct was intrinsically serious;

159. the practitioner clearly breached professional boundaries such that public and professional confidence cannot be reposed in her practising as a psychologist for a significant period of time;

160. the practitioner’s conduct posed a risk to the health and safety of the public and that, as the s 150 delegates explained, if the practitioner were to engage in similar behaviour with other particularly vulnerable clients, then their health, wellbeing and trust in the therapeutic process would be seriously damaged. This in turn could potentially result in a significant exacerbation of underlying mental health disorders and distress, leading to significant and potentially treatment-resistant or irreversible outcomes.

161. The Commission noted that in her Reply the practitioner said that she was “deeply remorseful”. In our view, that is a generous concession of the Commission. Nevertheless, the Commission submits that a cancellation of the practitioner’s registration with a one year non-review period was appropriate because the practitioner requires further time to demonstrate insight because:

162. when the practitioner provided her response to the Commission on 14 June 2024, she did not recognise her fundamental problems directly relevant to the complaint and made comments demonstrating a lack of insight such as “nor did I personally perceive that I held a position of power”;

163. when she gave evidence during the s 150 proceedings she showed little appreciation of the power imbalance in the relationship between herself and Patient A and made comments demonstrating a lack of insight;

164. when she provided her response to the Commission on 30 September 2024, she made further comments demonstrating a lack of insight, such as “it takes two to tango”;

165. when she provided her submissions to the Commission on 19 November 2024, she made comments attempting to minimise/justify/downplay her conduct, such as:

(a) claiming Patient A was already aware of the practitioner’s previous relationship; (b) claiming Patient A’s self-harm and threats of suicide “always showed up in a way that I perceived as emotionally manipulative”; (c) claiming that Patient A was “was equally behaving in ways and saying things suggestive or indicative of feelings and a connection with me”, (d) claiming that Patient A was “not as unwell as she currently presents”;

5. the practitioner’s conduct jeopardised the therapeutic relationship and posed an obvious risk of emotional harm to Patient A, a risk that ultimately eventuated;
6. cancelation with a non-review period of 1 year will make clear to the practitioner and other practitioners the seriousness with which the Tribunal views the practitioner’s conduct. That time is needed to censure the practitioner’s conduct and send a strong message, to her and other psychologists, that such conduct cannot be condoned.

Practitioner’s position

159. The practitioner agreed with the Commission’s proposal of cancellation of her registration with a non-review period of one year.

The Tribunal’s preliminary thoughts

160. We, however, do not.

161. As the Commission correctly submitted, this is not a consent jurisdiction and we are not obliged to make the protective order proposed by the Commission, even when the practitioner agrees that the orders are suitable. Even when the alleged conduct is admitted, the facts are agreed and the proposed orders are accepted, the Tribunal is still required to decide whether the admitted conduct justifies the discretionary judgments on the part of the Tribunal to make findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct and exercise the Tribunal’s discretion to make appropriate protective orders: see Health Care Complaints Commission v Nguyen [2025] NSWCATOD 121 at [81]; Health Care Complaints Commission v Salloum [2025] NSWCATOD 16 at [126]; Health Care Complaints Commission v Suri [2024] NSWCATOD 195 at [11]; Health Care Complaints Commission v Chin [2024] NSWCATOD 176 at [5].

162. Even where the subject-matter of the complaint is admitted, the Tribunal is still required to set out its factual findings, refer to any evidence on which the findings are based and give reason. If the Tribunal is minded to impose different protective orders, the Commission invites the Tribunal to provide the parties an opportunity to make further submissions.

163. We discussed this issue with the Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, we issued the following orders and reasons:

“1 The matter is reserved.

2 On or before 13-Apr-2026, the respondent may file and serve any submissions addressing the issue of the Tribunal making an order that the period before which the respondent be permitted to seek reinstatement of her registration is up to two years, rather than the 12 months agreed to between the parties.

3 The Commission may reply on or before 20-Apr-2026.

Reasons

The Tribunal conducted a combined Stage 1 and Stage 2 hearing in this matter today.

The respondent did not appear at the hearing.

During the course of the hearing, the Tribunal raised with the Commission the possibility of the Tribunal ordering that the respondent be prohibited from seeking reinstatement of her registration for a period greater than that that was agreed to between the parties, that is, rather than 12 months, that the period be up to two years.

The Commission indicated that it would not oppose such an order.

The Tribunal has not reached any conclusion on the length of period the respondent should be prevented from applying for reinstatement.

As a matter of procedural fairness to the respondent, she is invited to provide submissions on this issue to the Tribunal and the Commission for the Tribunal to take into account in making its decision. Any materials to be provided by the respondent are to be limited to submissions, and additional evidence will not be taken into account.

The Tribunal emphasises that it has not reached any conclusion on this issue.”

164. No submissions were filed by the practitioner pursuant to those orders.

Conclusion

165. We accept all of the Commission’s submissions, including that the registration of the practitioner should be cancelled.

166. However, we are unable to accept that a one year period before the practitioner can apply for reregistration is sufficient.

167. We regard the practitioner’s behaviour as disgraceful, and bringing shame on her profession. A patient of the practitioner, clearly compromised by an eating disorder and an OCD diagnosis, seeks professional assistance of a psychologist, who is treating her mother. The practitioner ceases to treat Patient A’s mother, Patient B, and within seven months of concluding her therapeutic relationship with Patient A, commences a sexual relationship with the younger woman.

168. In the absence of seeing the practitioner, and her being cross-examined by the Commission, we see no probative or credible evidence of remorse, or insight whatsoever. We regard all her statements to the Council, to the Commission and to us as being untested and potentially self-serving.

169. We are deeply troubled by her non-attendance at the hearing, and do not regard her explanation for not attending so to be in any way persuasive or satisfactory

170. As we stated above, the very purpose of a Stage 2 inquiry is to assess all those the understanding and insight which the practitioner claims. Is she truly remorseful? Has she really developed insight? Can the Tribunal, and the public, be positively reassured that the protective order she proposes is an appropriate one?

171. We are not.

172. We are aware that our jurisdiction is primarily protective, and not punitive (Litchfield at 637), but that it is unavoidable that protective orders may be incidentally punitive (Lee at [20] and [31]).

173. In circumstances where a practitioner refuses to participate in the Tribunal proceedings, we are unable to conclude that a one year period before which the practitioner can seek reregistration adequately protects the public.

174. In our view, that period ought to be two years.

Costs

175. In her submissions filed 16 October 2025, the practitioner does not oppose us ordering her to pay the Commission’s costs.

176. Accordingly, we will order the practitioner to pay Commission’s costs as agreed or as assessed.

Orders

177. The Tribunal orders:

178. Particulars (1) and (2) of Complaint One are established.

179. Complaint One is established, in that the respondent is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct pursuant to s 139B(1)(l) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW).

180. Particular 1 of Complaint Two is established.

181. Complaint Two is established, in that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct pursuant to s 139E of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW).

182. The registration of the respondent as a psychologist is cancelled pursuant to s 149C(1)(b) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW).

183. Any application for review of order (5) may not be made until two years after the date of these orders.

184. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs as agreed or as assessed.

185. The Tribunal made an order pursuant to cl 7 of Sch 5D of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) prohibiting the disclosure to any person or entity the names, addresses or any other identifying information of the person identified as Patient A in the Schedule to the Complaint attached to the applicant’s Application for Disciplinary Findings and Orders filed 11 April 2025, and Patient A’s mother, referred to as Patient B.

**********

Endnotes

Ex 1.

Marked for convenience as Ex 2.

Marked for convenience as Ex 3.

Marked for convenience as Ex 4.

Ex 5.

Ex 6.

Marked for convenience as Ex 7.

There is no s 165J(a)(a) of the National Law. We think that this must be a reference to s 165J(1)(a) of the National law. That section relevantly provides that at an inquiry conducted or appeal heard under the National Law by the Tribunal, the registered health practitioner or student and any complainant concerned are entitled to attend and to be represented by (a) an Australian legal practitioner.

This was tendered at the hearing by the Commission and marked as Exhibit 5.

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. Registrar

Amendments

12 June 2026

12 June 2026 – paragraphs [33], [44], [69], [72], [73], [74], [79], [82], [89], [103], [113], [127], [136], and [167] amended to remove identifying details.

28 July 2026

[137] Anonymised