Health Care Complaints Commission v Sathiyapal [2025] NSWCATOD 41;

1. The statutory task requires me to be satisfied that it is appropriate in the public interest to suspend the respondent's registration now, because the reputation of the profession would otherwise be compromised were he to remain registered.
2. Of the factors that are material here, the following support there be no order for suspension:

(1) The length of time between the delivery of the Stage 1 decision and the current application is not a factor that disentitles the applicant from the relief it seeks. Nevertheless, this is an interlocutory proceeding concerned with the protection of the public and I note the length of time between the conduct underlying the proceedings, the date the findings were made and the date of the interim application, supports the respondent's submission that there is a lack of urgency and provides some weight to the submission that, on an interim basis, the status quo is appropriate.

(2) Further, the lack of detailed evidence from the respondent as to his insight, remorse and rehabilitation, does not create a hurdle for the practitioner. This is a reflection of the stage the proceedings are up to. The new disciplinary hearing will deal comprehensively with any issues of contrition and insight that may arise.

(3) Matters that may alter the final position will be dealt with in less than two months as part of the new disciplinary proceedings, where appropriate final orders will be considered.

(4) The current conditions on the practitioner's registration are tailored to address the concerns of health and safety and public interest before the new proceedings take place.

(5) The conditions on the practitioner's registration coupled to the pendency of the new disciplinary proceedings would go some way to satisfy the public that the risks posed by the practitioner's continued registration are being addressed and therefore go some way to addressing the reputational risk to the profession.

(6) There is a public interest element in the practitioner's continued registration since, according to the supervisor's letters tendered by the respondent, he has a strong patient base and is well-liked by patients. Some of his patients visit him from far away, and he attends to Sri Lankan migrants and refugee patients who have language difficulties. The Tribunal notes, as the applicant highlighted at the hearing, that those patients may not be aware of the factual findings that have been made against the practitioner, and I accept that evidence of this kind should be accorded limited weight.

1. For completeness, the current conditions on the practitioner's registration are as follows, extracted from the Evidentiary Certificate from the National Register of Health Practitioners dated 11 March 2025 tendered by the applicant:

"30 January 2024 to date of certificate

On January 2024, the Council imposed the following conditions to the registration of the practitioner.

1. To obtain Medical Council of NSW approval prior to change the nature or place of his practice.

2. To practise only in a group practice approved by the Medical Council of NSW where there is at least one registered medical practitioner (excluding the subject practitioner):

• Where the patients and patient records are shared between the medical practitioners.

• Where there is always one other registered medical practitioner on site.

3. To practise no more than 4 days a week.

4. To treat no more than 4 patients per hour and no more than 30 patients in any one day.

a) The practitioner is to provide the Medical Council of NSW with copies

of records confirming the number of patients treated, their consultation

times and hours worked on any dates as specified by the Council.

5. To practise under category B supervision in accordance with the Medical

Council of NSW's Compliance Policy - Supervision (as varied from time to time) and as subsequently determined by the appropriate review body.

a) At each supervision meeting the practitioner is to review and discuss

his practice with his approved supervisor with particular focus on:

• Management of challenging patients.

• Provision of medical records that contain appropriate detail of history and consent, examination investigation and treatment plan,

• appropriate use of mental health plans,

• plans for people with chronic health issues,

• compliance with regulations on drug prescribing,

• ethics and code of conduct.

b) To authorise the Medical Council of NSW to provide proposed and approved supervisors with a copy of the decision which imposed this condition and any other decision or report as determined by the Council.

c) Not to practise until a supervisor has been approved by the Medical Council of NSW.

6. To authorise and consent to any exchange of information between the Medical Council of NSW and Medicare Australia for the purpose of monitoring compliance with these conditions."

1. Nevertheless, and noting that the issue before the Tribunal is confined to the protection of the public interest, insofar as the reputation of the profession is concerned, rather than a specific risk to health and safety, there are circumstances that suggest it is appropriate to suspend the practitioner ahead of the new hearing. The subject matter findings in relation to the conduct and that this conduct has been held to constitute unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct and are capable of negatively impacting the reputation of the profession. However, I am satisfied that this would have more weight were the practitioner still practising unsupervised, without conditions, and if the new disciplinary proceedings were not afoot. This is nevertheless relevant to an assessment of public interest.
2. I am not satisfied that it is appropriate to suspend the practitioner's registration ahead of the new disciplinary proceedings.

1. Both parties sought costs in the event they were successful. Following the principles outlined in Puri v Medical Council of New South Wales (No 2) [2024] NSWCATOD 122, costs are to compensate the winning party, and subject to various exceptions, costs would ordinarily follow the event. The discretion must be exercised with regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The respondent has been wholly successful. There are no countervailing factors here.
2. For those reasons, the applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of the interlocutory application.

(1) The application for an order under s 165L(3) of the Health Practitioners Regulation National Law (NSW) is refused.

(2) The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs.

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.