(a) between on or about 9 May 2022 and on or about 8 September 2022, Michael Eskander engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in s 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) ('National Law') in that he failed to comply with the conditions imposed on his registration as particularised in Allegation 1 of the notice of allegations filed by the applicant on 28 September 2023 ('Notice of Allegations'); and

(b) on 26 May 2022, Michael Eskander engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in s 5 of the National Law in that he knowingly provided false or misleading information to the Board and/or the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency ('Ahpra') when he sent an email to Ahpra stating that he had ceased practising as particularised in Allegation 2 of the Notice of Allegations.

1. Under s 196(2)(a) of the National Law, Michael Eskander is reprimanded.
2. Under s 196(2)(e) of the National Law, Michael Eskander's registration as a health practitioner is cancelled.
3. Under s 196(4)(a) of the National Law, Michael Eskander is disqualified from applying for registration as a health practitioner for a period of 12 months, that is until on or after 18 August 2026.

1. On 21 April 2022, the Medical Board of Australia ('Board') imposed conditions on the medical practitioner registration of Dr Michael Eskander under section 178(1)(a) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) ('National Law'), including that he only practise while under supervision ('Supervision Condition').
2. On 28 September 2023, the Board referred two allegations of professional misconduct and/or unprofessional conduct to the Tribunal in relation to the Supervision Condition.
3. The first allegation is that Dr Eskander failed to comply with the Supervision Condition over a four-month period from 9 May 2022 to 8 September 2022 ('Allegation 1'). The earlier date is the date on which Dr Eskander was notified of the Supervision Condition. The latter date is the date on which the Board suspended his registration, as discussed below.
4. On 26 May 2022, at 8.40am, Dr Eskander sent an email to a compliance officer from the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency ('Ahpra') claiming confusion as to the operation of the Supervision Condition, but advising that he had now ceased practising ('26 May Representation').
5. However, in fact, Dr Eskander continued to practise as a general practitioner, including seeing numerous patients on 26 May 2022 itself.
6. The Board alleges that, in making the 26 May Representation, Dr Eskander knowingly provided false or misleading information to the Board or Ahpra ('Allegation 2').
7. As a result of that conduct, on 8 September 2022, the Board determined to suspend Dr Eskander's registration as a medical practitioner by way of immediate action under section 156 of the National Law. That suspension remained in place until 19 January 2023. When the suspension was lifted, the conditions on his registration, including as to supervision, were re-enlivened.
8. Dr Eskander admits he engaged in the conduct the subject of the two allegations brought against him by the Board. Having regard to those admissions and the material in the Tribunal Book, particularly Medicare data, we were comfortably satisfied and found the allegations to be proven.
9. The Board sought findings that the conduct the subject of each of the allegations amounted to 'professional misconduct' under paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of that phrase in section 5 of the National Law. While Dr Eskander did not expressly admit to that characterisation of his conduct, we were comfortably satisfied and found that this was so.
10. The Board sought determinations that Dr Eskander be reprimanded, have his registration as a medical practitioner cancelled and that he be disqualified from applying for registration for a period of 12 months.
11. Dr Eskander did not agree with the determinations sought by the Board, contending that he had demonstrated genuine remorse, insight and rehabilitation and, for that reason (as well as his health and financial circumstances), the period of suspension he had already served was sufficient to address his misconduct. Further, he submitted that no further orders were necessary to protect the public.
12. For the reasons which follow, we determined that it was necessary to reprimand Dr Eskander, cancel his registration as a medical practitioner and disqualify him from applying for registration for a period of 12 months.
13. We advised the parties of our findings (including as to characterisation) and orders at the end of the hearing.
14. We set out our reasons for these findings and orders below.

Allegation 1: Failure to comply with registration conditions

1. Allegation 1 of the Notice of Allegations ('Notice')[1] provides that:

Between on or about 9 May 2022 and on or about 8 September 2022, Dr Michael Eskander engaged in:

(a) professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in s 5 of the National Law; and/or

(b) unprofessional conduct within the meaning of the definition of unprofessional conduct in s 5 of the National Law

in that he failed to comply with the conditions imposed on his registration.

1. The particular of that allegation are as follows:

1.1 On 13 April 2018, Dr Eskander was first registered with the Board, registration number MED0002178374. On his initial registration, Dr Eskander held limited post graduate training or supervised practise registration with level 1 supervision. On 14 February 2020, Dr Eskander was first granted general registration.

1.2 At all material times, Dr Eskander:

(a) held general registration with the Board;

(b) was a registered medical practitioner within the meaning of the National Law; and

(c) was practising as a general practitioner at St Michael Medical Centre, 254 Blackburn Road, Doncaster East.

1.3 On or about 21 April 2022, the Board decided to impose conditions on Dr Eskander's registration, including the following:

1. The Practitioner must only practise as a general practitioner when supervised by another registered health practitioner (the supervisor).

For the purposes of this condition, 'supervised' is defined as:

The Practitioner must consult the supervisor, who is accessible by telephone or other means of telecommunication about the management of patients and/or performance of the Practitioner, when necessary and otherwise at weekly intervals. (Clause 1)

1. Within 21 days of the notice of imposition of these conditions, the Practitioner must, on the approved form (HPN10), nominate a primary supervisor and at least one alternate supervisor to be approved by the Board. The Practitioner must ensure that each nomination is accompanied by an acknowledgement, on the approved form (HPNA10), from each nominated supervisor that they are willing to undertake the role of supervisor and are aware that Ahpra will seek reports from them. (Clause 2)
2. In the event that no approved supervisor is willing or able to provide the supervision required the Practitioner must cease practice immediately and must not resume practice until a new supervisor has been nominated by the Practitioner and approved by the Board. (Clause 3)

(Conditions)

1.4 On or about 9 May 2022, Dr Eskander was aware that, on or about 21 April 2022, the Board decided to impose the Conditions on his registration.

1.5 Between on or about 9 May 2022 and on or about 6 September 2022, Dr Eskander practiced as a medical practitioner without an approved supervisor in contravention of Clauses 1 and 3 of the Conditions in that:

(a) Between on or about 9 May 2022 and on or about 25 May 2022, Dr Eskander:

(1) consulted with approximately 1,085 patients and performed approximately 1,098 medical services for those patients; and/or

(2) wrote prescriptions for approximately 244 patients; and/or

(b) Between on or about 26 May 2022 and on or about 6 July 2022, Dr Eskander:

(1) consulted with approximately 2,342 patients and performed approximately 2,393 medical services for those patients; and/or

(2) wrote prescriptions for approximately 558 patients; and/or

(c) Between on or about 7 July 2022 and on or about 24 August 2022, Dr Eskander:

(1) consulted with approximately 2,437 patients and performed approximately 2,456 medical services for those patients; and/or

(2) wrote prescriptions for approximately 748 patients; and/or

(d) Between on or about 25 August 2022 and on or about 31 August 2022, Dr Eskander:

(1) consulted with approximately 280 patients and performed approximately 286 medical services for those patients; and/or

(2) wrote prescriptions for approximately 96 patients; and/or

(e) Between on or about 1 September 2022 and on or about 8 September 2022, Dr Eskander:

(1) consulted with approximately 277 patients and performed approximately 284 medical services for those patients; and/or

(2) wrote prescriptions for approximately 92 patients.

1.6 Between on or about 9 May 2022 and on or about 26 May 2022, Dr Eskander was in communication with Ahpra regarding his supervised practice requirements and education requirements, including:

(a) On or about 18 May 2022, in an email sent by Ahpra at approximately 1.42 pm, Dr Eskander was asked by Ahpra to confirm whether he had ceased practising.

(b) On or about 23 May 2022, in an email sent to Ahpra at approximately 1.52 am, Dr Eskander stated that he thought there was a misunderstanding. Referring to Clause 2 of the Conditions, Dr Eskander stated:

Therefore, I understand by 30/05 I have to nominate a supervisor otherwise I have to cease practicing, not to cease since I have received the notification. I have 21 days notice.

(c) On or about 23 May 2022, Matthew Fox, a Regulatory Officer from Ahpra, telephoned Dr Eskander and clarified the supervised practice requirements under the Conditions.

(d) On or about 26 May 2022, in an email sent to Ahpra at approximately 8.40 am, Dr Eskander stated:

Regarding he [sic] condition on my registration . I have one query which is confusing. What does it mean by (within 21 days , if no supervisor is able or willing to supervise , the practioner [sic] must cease immediately, how come cease since receiving the notification , and then saying with 21 days from receiving the notification if I can not find a supervisor within 21 days , I have to cease practising?

It is very confusing to me, However I confirm now that I ceased practising.

1.7 On or about 7 July 2022, Dr Eskander was aware that the Board proposed to caution him for failing to comply with Clauses 1 and 3 of the Conditions by practicing as a general practitioner without a Board approved supervisor.

1.8 On or about 25 August 2022, Dr Eskander was aware that the Board decided to caution him for failing to comply with Clauses 1 and 3 of the Conditions by practicing as a general practitioner without a Board approved supervisor.

1.9 On or about 31 August 2022, Dr Eskander was aware that the Board proposed to take immediate action by way of suspension for practising in contravention of the Conditions.

1.10 On or about 9 September 2022, Dr Eskander was aware that the Board had decided, on 8 September 2022, to take immediate action under section 156 of the National Law to suspend his registration.

1.11 Notwithstanding paragraphs 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 to 1.9, Dr Eskander continued to practice as a general practitioner in breach of Clauses 1 and 3 of the Conditions.

1.12 The Board refers to ... principles 2.1, 3.2.1, 7.1, 10.1, 10.11.1 and 10.11.2 of the Code of Conduct.

1.13 Dr Eskander's conduct was inconsistent with the principles set out at paragraph 1.12.

1. In terms of the key aspects of the allegation, the Tribunal Book includes:
   • A letter sent by the Board to Dr Eskander by email on 9 May 2022 informing him of its decision to impose conditions on his registration and providing the details of those conditions.[2]
   • Detailed Medicare data as to Dr Eskander's consultations with, medical services provided to and prescriptions for, numerous patients between 9 May 2022 and 6 September 2022.[3]
   • Copies of the correspondence and a file note of a conversation between Ahpra and Dr Eskander referenced at paragraph 1.6 of the particulars.[4]
   • A letter that Ahpra sent by email to Dr Eskander on 7 July 2022 advising him of its proposed action, being to caution him for his contravention of the conditions on his registration as to supervised practice, and a further letter sent by email on 25 August 2022 confirming that action.[5]
   • A letter that Ahpra sent by email to Dr Eskander on 31 August 2022 advising him of its proposed immediate action, being to suspend his registration for his contravention of the conditions on his registration as to supervised practice, and a further letter sent by email on 9 September 2022 confirming that action.[6]
2. On the day prior to the hearing, the Board filed a copy of an email chain between the Board's solicitors (Russell Kennedy) and Dr Eskander in June 2025 which records that:
   • On 10 June 2025, Russell Kennedy sent Dr Eskander an email attaching a document entitled 'Proposed Statement of Agreed Facts, Findings and Determinations' ('Proposed Statement'), a copy of which was attached to the Board's submissions. Part A of that document set out the facts proposed to be agreed reflecting the particulars of the allegations. The Board asked Dr Eskander to advise '[w]hether all facts outlined in Part A are agreed or if some are disputed'.
   • On 19 June 2025, Dr Eskander replied to indicate that he 'confirm[s] the statements [he] made during the compulsory conference' but that he did 'not agree with any part of Section C' (being the proposed determinations).
3. In the Board's submissions, it is contended that the Tribunal can be comfortably satisfied that the conduct in respect of each allegation is proven '[h]aving regard to the totality of the evidence contained in the Tribunal Book, and in combination with the admissions made by [Dr Eskander] by agreeing to Part A' of the Proposed Statement.[7]
4. At the hearing, Dr Eskander again confirmed that he agreed to the 'factual circumstances'.
5. Having regard to these matters, we were comfortably satisfied and found Allegation 1 proven.

Allegation 2: False or misleading information

On 26 May 2022, Dr Michael Eskander engaged in:

(a) professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in s 5 of the National Law; and/or

(b) unprofessional conduct within the meaning of the definition of unprofessional conduct in s 5 of the National Law

in that he knowingly or recklessly provided false or misleading information to the Board and/or Ahpra when he sent an email to Ahpra stating that he had ceased practising.

1. The particular of that allegation are as follows:

2.1 The Board refers to and repeats paragraphs 1.1 to 1.6 [of the particulars to Allegation 1].

2.2 By stating in an email sent at approximately 8.40 am on 26 May 2022 that he had ceased practising, Dr Eskander provided false or misleading information as he had not and did not cease practising.

2.3 On 26 May 2022, the same day that he sent the email referred to at paragraphs 1.6(d) and 2.2, Dr Eskander:

(a) consulted with approximately 69 patients and performed approximately 69 medical services for those patients; and/or

(b) wrote prescriptions for approximately 15 patients.

2.4 Dr Eskander continued practising until on or around 8 September 2022, as described in paragraph 1.5 [of the particulars to Allegation 1].

2.5 The Board refers to, as set out in the attached Schedule, principles 2.1, 10.1, 10.11.1 and 10.11.2 of the Code of Conduct.

2.6 Dr Eskander's conduct was inconsistent with the principles set out at paragraph 2.5.

1. In terms of the key aspects of the allegation, the Tribunal Book includes:
   • A copy of the email that Dr Eskander sent to Ahpra on 26 May 2022 advising that he had ceased practising (which he had emphasised in bold and underline).[8]
   • Detailed Medicare data as to Dr Eskander's consultations with, medical services provided to and prescriptions for his patients on 26 May 2022 and between that date and 8 September 2022.[9]
2. As already noted, Dr Eskander admits the conduct.
3. Having regard to these matters, we were comfortably satisfied and found Allegation 2 proven, including that Dr Eskander had knowingly (not just recklessly) provided false or misleading information to the Board or Ahpra.

1. The Board submitted that both allegations should be found to constitute professional misconduct within paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of that phrase in section 5 of the National Law,[10] which provides that professional misconduct includes:

(a) unprofessional conduct by the practitioner that amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and

...

(c) conduct of the practitioner, whether occurring in connection with the practice of the health practitioner's profession or not, that is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession.

1. In broad terms, this was based on the 'serious, deliberate, repeated and protracted nature of the conduct'.[11]
2. While Dr Eskander's email of 19 June 2025 (see [18]) tends to suggest that he admitted that the conduct amounts to professional misconduct, at hearing he appeared to take issue with the suggestion that the conduct was inconsistent with him being a fit and proper person to hold registration.
3. Accordingly, we have regarded this as not being an agreed characterisation and address each allegation in more detail below.

Allegation 1: Professional misconduct under paragraphs (a) and (c)

1. The Board relies on the following factors to support the proposed characterisation of the conduct:[12]

Seriousness of the conduct: the conduct is objectively serious. Failing to abide by conditions imposed by the regulator for the purposes of patient safety is inherently serious. The Respondent consulted with a total of approximately 6,421 patients, performed approximately 6,517 medical services, and wrote approximately 1,738 prescriptions over the relevant period. The high volume of patients treated by the Respondent demonstrates a pattern of regular and sustained conduct that undermined the safety of a significant number of patients. The seriousness of the conduct is aggravated by the fact that the Respondent told the regulator that he had ceased practising in circumstances when he was continuing to practise, in flagrant disregard for the conditions imposed on his registration. The supervision conditions were imposed following concerns that had been raised about the Respondent's clinical performance by his previous supervisor. By contravening these conditions, the respondent placed the safety of a large number of patients at risk.

Repetitious and protracted: the conduct was repetitious and occurred over a protracted period of approximately 4 months and 11 days. The Respondent treated a high volume of patients - (as noted above) he consulted with approximately 6,421 patients, performed approximately 6,517 medical services, and wrote approximately 1,738 prescriptions over the relevant period.

Connected to practice: the allegation is directly connected to the Respondent's practice as a medical practitioner. The Respondent practised without a supervisor contrary to conditions imposed by the regulator, undermining the protection afforded to patients and the public that the conditions were intended to provide.

Inconsistent with professional standards: by engaging in the conduct, the Respondent breached multiple standards in the Good Medical Practice: Code of Conduct for Doctors in Australia, which came into effect on 1 October 2020 (['Code']) including failing to embody the qualities of professionalism described in the Code of Conduct.

Reputational risk: the Respondent's failure to adhere to conditions on his registration by practising as a medical practitioner without an approved supervisor undermines the profession's good standing and the inherent trust that exists between the public and the profession. In particular, it undermines the credibility of the profession, whose members are required to be honest, ethical and trustworthy, and maintain a high level of medical competence and a standard of behaviour that warrants the trust and respect of the community.

Community expectations: the Respondent's conduct is at odds with the expectations of the community, and the community would be legitimately concerned about a medical practitioner who disregards conditions imposed by the regulator for the purpose of protecting the safety and wellbeing of patients.

Deliberate and dishonest: the Respondent was aware of the conditions imposed by the Board on his registration that required him to only practise when supervised by another health practitioner. The Respondent deliberately disregarded the supervision condition and continued to consult with a large number of patients in contravention of this requirement. The Respondent's conduct was dishonest and deliberate. This demonstrates a flagrant disregard and disrespect for the regulator and shows a lack of insight into the purpose and protective rationale behind supervision conditions being imposed.

1. In his oral submissions on behalf of the Board, Mr Chipkin (of Counsel) observed that the case law makes it clear that the characterisation of conduct involves an objective assessment.[13] For this reason, to the extent that Dr Eskander sought to rely on his subjective views or his (subsequent) remorse, insight or rehabilitation, it was 'not relevant at this stage'.
2. Mr Chipkin went on to submit that Dr Eskander's conduct was 'deliberate, repeated and dishonest', suggesting that he was 'clearly aware that he was not permitted to practice' and had been told as much on a number of occasions. As such, his conduct demonstrated 'blatant disregard for the Board's regulatory obligations', as well as 'his own obligations to comply with his registration conditions'.
3. In his evidence in chief, Dr Eskander sought to characterise his conduct (for both allegations) as a 'very bad mistake' and contended that:
   • The conditions were imposed on his registration as a result of a notification by a former supervisor, who was 'jealous', and that the notification (which raised concerns as to Dr Eskander's medical knowledge and ability) was inconsistent with a reference that the supervisor had provided on 18 December 2019 (only 11 days before the notification) praising Dr Eskander in the following terms:[14]

In my opinion, Dr. Eskander always displays competent medical knowledge to clinical cases and should he need advice, he consults with me or other co-supervisors in the clinic. I am confident that Dr. Eskander has gained adequate experience during this time as well as supervision.

...

I confirm that Dr. Eskander has demonstrated a high standard of practice in his 17-month period of supervised clinical practice, which is equivalent to an intern at the end of an intern year.

I will continue to support Dr. Eskander's practice offering all assistance available to maintain his safe and efficient practice[.]

• He 'totally regrets' his conduct, is remorseful and 'disappointed' with himself.
• He had difficulty finding a supervisor and, when he did, the Board did not accept the person he put forward.
• During his suspension, he was not able to practise and had to hire a locum doctor for his clinic, while he worked in 'admin support'.
• He has had 'a very hard time' as a result of the action taken by the Board in terms of his 'health, position and self-esteem', noting that 'everyone in the community [of Egyptian Coptics] is aware of what happened'.

When the Tribunal enquired as to the impact on his health, Dr Eskander explained that he 'felt under the pump' and was in a 'panic' when he received the Board's notices and had been admitted to hospital a few times. He moved to Western Australia to 'clear [his] mind' and, to look after his own health, now only works three days a week.

• He is 'a human being, not god', but that does not mean he would repeat the conduct in the future.

1. We accept the Board's submission that the characterisation of proven conduct as professional misconduct, unprofessional conduct or unsatisfactory professional performance involves an objective assessment. In Psychology Board of Australia v TOV,[15] the Tribunal observed:[16]

Characterising proven conduct is an objective assessment which looks towards the conduct in light of the applicable standards and relevant definitions, rather than matters arising later in time, such as remorse, insight and rehabilitation.

1. It is apparent that, save for his contention that the failure to comply with the Supervision Condition was a 'very bad mistake', the evidence that Dr Eskander gave fails to engage with the issues relevant to an assessment of the objective nature of the conduct. Rather, his evidence largely goes to questions of remorse, insight and rehabilitation.
2. The question of whether the failure to comply with the Supervision Condition was 'deliberate, repeated and dishonest' (as put on behalf of the Board) or a 'very bad mistake' (as Dr Eskander suggests) is obviously important to the assessment of the seriousness of the conduct and therefore to its characterisation.
3. In that regard, in cross-examination, Dr Eskander conceded that, while he had 'initially misunderstood' the Supervision Condition as allowing him 21 or 28 days to find a supervisor, 'after that, [he] knew [he] had to stop but couldn't stop'. He accepted that, on or about 23 May 2022 and 26 May 2022, Ahpra contacted him to tell him that he needed to stop practising. He accepted that he saw approximately 69 patients on 26 May 2022 and that he continued to see patients, without supervision, until September 2022.
4. When it was put to Dr Eskander that he 'knew' he had failed to comply with the Supervision Condition, he conceded this was the case, suggesting that he had been 'hoping to find a supervisor', so that the 'situation could be fixed'.
5. Dr Eskander said he understood that the Board had imposed the Supervision Condition to protect public safety and agreed that, by not complying with that condition, he put patients at risk, but added that this was not his intention. He continued to contend that the condition had only been imposed because of the malicious complaint by his former supervisor.
6. In light of this evidence, we were comfortably satisfied that the conduct was deliberate, rather than mistaken, and as such objectively (and extremely) serious.
7. The Medicare data establishes the repetitious and protracted nature of Dr Eskander's failure to comply with the Supervision Conditions, which was clearly within the course of practice.
8. Dr Eskander's conduct in continuing to practise while unsupervised was self-evidently inconsistent with his obligations under the Code, particularly the principles identified at [1.12] of the Notice.
9. We accept that, by engaging in that conduct, Dr Eskander put the good standing of the medical profession, and the trust that must exist between a patient and their doctor, at risk. That conduct is clearly at odds with community expectations.
10. For these reasons, we were comfortably satisfied that Dr Eskander's conduct was:
    • unprofessional conduct that fell 'substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered practitioner of an equivalent level of training and experience' and so within paragraph (a) of the definition of professional misconduct; and
    • conduct, which was 'inconsistent with [Dr Eskander] being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession' and so within paragraph (c) of the definition of professional misconduct.

Allegation 2: Professional misconduct under paragraphs (a) and (c)

1. The Board relies on the following factors to support the proposed characterisation of the conduct:[17]

Seriousness of the conduct: the conduct is objectively serious and dishonest. Providing false information to the Board/Ahpra frustrates the regulator's ability to regulate the profession and ensure the safety of the public. Lying to a regulator also demonstrates a disregard for professional obligations and for the authority of the regulator. Moreover, the Respondent treated a large number of patients on the very same day that he told the regulator that he had ceased practising. The Respondent's deception was only discovered after he had already been cautioned for practising without a supervisor for the shorter 17-day period between 9 May to 22 May 2022.

Lack of integrity: the Board relies on the honesty and integrity of practitioners in their communications with the regulator. The Respondent's conduct demonstrated a lack of integrity on his part and had the effect of undermining the Board's regulatory function.

Reputational risk: the Respondent's dishonest conduct undermines the profession's good standing and the inherent trust that exists between the public and the profession. In particular, it undermines the credibility of the profession, whose members are required to demonstrate honesty and integrity both in their practice and when dealing with the regulator.

Community expectations: the Respondent's conduct is at odds with the expectations of the community, and the community would be legitimately concerned about a medical practitioner who has lied to the regulator in the course of an investigation.

Inconsistent with professional standards: the Respondent's conduct breached multiple standards in the Code of Conduct, including conduct that undermines qualities such as being honest, ethical and trustworthy.

Dishonest and deliberate conduct: the conduct was deliberate and dishonest. The assertion that he had ceased practising was written in bold and underlined font. It was unequivocal and knowingly false. The Respondent consulted with 69 patients unsupervised on the very same day that he falsely stated to the regulator that he had ceased to practice. In addition, the Respondent continued to practise for several months after that date and treated several thousand other patients.

1. In cross-examination, Dr Eskander accepted that he knew the 26 May Representation was false and that he had continued to treat 69 patients while unsupervised that very day and continued to treat patients, while unsupervised, until September 2022. He also admitted that he knew that, as a doctor, he needed to be truthful and that he had been dishonest in making that representation.
2. In Psychology Board of Australia v Griersmith,[18] the Tribunal observed that:[19]

The term 'fit and proper person' is not defined in the National Law but its meaning has been the subject of much judicial comment. The test does not carry defined criteria but allows for a wide range of matters to be considered. It includes not only whether a person has the necessary honesty, knowledge and ability but also whether the person possesses sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character to permit them to be accredited to the public as a person to be entrusted with the sort of work the relevant registration or licence entails.

1. That a doctor is dishonest in their dealings with the Board or Ahpra signals that they do not possess 'sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character' to be held out to the public as a person to be trusted. That Dr Eskander made the 26 May Representation, knowing it to be false and clearly intending to continue to see patients and ignore the Supervision Condition, is of the utmost seriousness. It is conduct that is plainly inconsistent with the Code and with community standards.
2. For these reasons, we were comfortably satisfied that Dr Eskander's conduct was:
   • unprofessional conduct that fell 'substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered practitioner of an equivalent level of training and experience' and so within paragraph (a) of the definition of professional misconduct; and
   • conduct, which was 'inconsistent with [Dr Eskander] being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession' and so within paragraph (c) of the definition of professional misconduct.

1. Having found the conduct the subject of the allegations proven and characterised the conduct in each case as amounting to professional misconduct, the final step is to make appropriate determinations under section 196 of the National Law.
2. In its submissions, the Board provides a summary of what are referred to as the 'well established guidelines' concerning determinations.[20] We accept the accuracy of that summary and highlight the following matters:
   • the primary objectives of determinations are to protect the public and maintain the professional standards of the profession in the eyes of the public;
   • determinations should in no way be punitive;
   • specific deterrence, general deterrence and the facilitation of rehabilitation on the part of the practitioner are all matters relevant to the appropriate determinations. On the other hand, personal matters, such as a practitioner's shame, personal ordeal and financial difficulty are of little relevance;
   • the assessment of the ongoing risk posed by the practitioner is central to the imposition of determinations, with the degree to which the practitioner has acquired insight into their conduct being relevant to that assessment; and
   • any form of official censure, including a reprimand, is of consequence.

1. The Board submits that a reprimand is appropriate as a vehicle for the Tribunal to 'express its condemnation of the nature and extent of [Dr Eskander's] misconduct', noting that 'a reprimand is a serious form of censure in its own right'.[21]
2. In his submissions, Dr Eskander submits that the period during which he was suspended, being from September 2022 to January 2023 (see [7]), had a 'profound effect, both personally and professionally' and that any 'further or ongoing orders would amount to double punishment, contrary to the protective purpose of the National[22]aw'.22 He submits that '[n]o further orders, beyond those already endured, are necessary to protect the pu[23]ic'.23
3. While Dr Eskander's submissions seemed to suggest that even a reprimand was unnecessary, he subsequently filed an Application to Reopen an Order dated 2 September 2025 in which he appeared to accept that a reprimand was 'an appropriate outcome' to 'prevent the recurrence of similar mistakes and to act as an example for colleagues in the profession'.[24]
4. In our view, a reprimand is a necessary (but insufficient) determination having regard to the extremely serious nature of the misconduct of Dr Eskander which involved a deliberate failure to comply with the Supervision Condition over a protracted period and the knowing provision of false or misleading information to the Board and/or Ahpra.

1. In its submissions, the Board observes that cancellation is:[25]

ordered in circumstances where a practitioner is unsuitable to remain registered by reason of his or her conduct (and where, therefore, the practitioner must reapply for registration if he or she seeks to return to the profession).

1. By contrast to suspension, cancellation 'sends a clear message of unsuitability to practise, whereas suspension may be thought to indicate confidence in the practitioner's future ability to practise once the period of suspension is served'.[26]
2. The Board submits that, because Dr Eskander's conduct 'fell so far short of the standards required of a general practitioner', 'cancellation and a period of disqualification is the only appropriate mechanism by which the community can be protected and general deterrence can be achieved'.[27] In making this submission, the Board again highlights the repeated and prolonged nature of the conduct the subject of Allegation 1 and the 'intentional dishonesty towards the regulator' the subject of Allegation 2.[28]
3. The Board points to the following matters in support of its submission that Dr Eskander's medical registration should be cancelled and that he be disqualified from applying for registration for a period of 12 months:[29]

Necessary to protect the public: the Respondent engaged in repeated conduct of a serious nature. The conduct calls into question the Respondent's suitability for practice, his ethical decision making and professional judgment. The Respondent's conduct also posed a risk to the public's confidence in not just the profession itself, but also in the regulatory system established by the National Law. In this case, protection of the public requires the Tribunal to give weight to maintaining public confidence that medical practitioners practise their profession with integrity and that the ethical and professional standards expected of medical practitioners are clear and properly adhered to.

Meets the need for general deterrence: cancellation and a period of disqualification will send a message to other members of the profession that this type of conduct will not be tolerated. Given that this matter involves repetitious conduct of a dishonest and serious nature which occurred over a protracted period, the need for general deterrence is heightened. The wider profession needs to be aware that this type of flagrant misconduct, which involved the treatment of thousands of patients in contravention of the practitioner's conditions, will not be tolerated. This is one reason why a period of disqualification - as opposed to suspension - is warranted ...

Meets the need for specific deterrence: in reaching its position as to determinations, the Board has taken into account the admissions made by the Respondent by agreeing to Part A and Part B of the [Proposed Statement] and his acceptance of wrongdoing. However, the need for specific deterrence is heightened in circumstances where the conduct was repeated, prolonged and involved dishonesty towards the Board. The Respondent's conduct indicates, at the very least, a lack of understanding of his obligations as a health practitioner and the seriousness with which they are taken by the regulator and the public. The determination imposed by the Tribunal should "bring home" to the Respondent the seriousness of his departure from professional standards, and "deter [him] from any further departure".

Lack of insight: the Respondent has demonstrated some insight into his conduct. He has completed the required education and medical ethics courses and also provided a reflective report to Ahpra which was submitted to the Board in January 2023 (i.e. before the referral of this matter to the Tribunal). In that reflective report, the Respondent acknowledged that his conduct led to the imposition of the Conditions. However, since the reflective report in January there has been no further evidence of the Respondent's insight into his conduct. The Respondent has not provided any further evidence of insight since this matter was referred to the Tribunal on 28 September 2023. This makes it difficult to assess whether learnings from the courses he attended have been permanently incorporated into his practice and whether his perspective in the reflective report has meaningfully improved his professional practice. However, the Respondent continues to have compliance issues with respect to other conditions imposed on his registration on 24 August 2023 and 21 June 2024. This suggests he has little, if any, insight into his conduct, particularly the importance of complying with conditions imposed on his registration.

Will address the need to maintain professional standards: the determination imposed must uphold the expectations of the profession and the community, and the integrity of the profession ...

... In this matter, the Respondent's conduct breached a number of professional standards. His conduct has the capacity to undermine the regard in which the profession is held by members of the public. The determinations proposed by the Board will assure the public that the appropriate standards are maintained by the profession.

The period of disqualification is proportionate: having regard to the comparable cases discussed below, the Board submits that a 12-month period of disqualification is proportionate to the objective gravity of the conduct and would appropriately reflect the relevant factors outlined above.

1. In relation to the question of insight, at the hearing, the Board tendered a letter sent to Dr Eskander on 29 July 2025[30] identifying a number of concerns as to his compliance with conditions imposed on his registration in August 2023 and June 2024, deciding that he had contravened the specified conditions and referring his non-compliance to the Tribunal under section 193 of the National Law.
2. While Dr Eskander accepted that he had received the letter, as he had not had the opportunity to read it, he was given time to do so, prior to the continuation of his cross-examination. While he suggested that he took the letter seriously, he said he could not comply with the various conditions because he could not find an approved educator (noting that the one he had identified had been rejected by the Board). He said he planned to wait for the outcome of this hearing before taking any further action.
3. When it was put to Dr Eskander that he prioritised treating patients over compliance with the conditions on his registration and had a pattern of ignoring such conditions, Dr Eskander suggested he was 'under too much pressure from being sick and work' and that it was 'tough to do [it all] at the same time'. He said he had become 'paralysed' by it all.
4. Dr Eskander was also cross-examined on the impact of his health conditions (in particular, in relation to a liver condition requiring a transplant) and its impact on his ability to work. While he claimed that he had been very sick and close to dying, he was then taken to further Medicare data by Mr Chipkin,[31] which demonstrated that he had continued to conduct telehealth consultations throughout the period from December 2024 to April 2025. When it was put to him that he had 'lied' in saying that he had been unable to work at the time, he said that his references to an inability to work, meant consulting with patients 'in clinic'.
5. While Dr Eskander's evidence is that all the consultations during that period were telehealth, it was apparent from the Medicare records that some had been claimed as in person consultations. When the Tribunal asked Dr Eskander about this, he said that he could provide no explanation.
6. In his closing submissions on behalf of the Board, Mr Chipkin submitted that it was 'apparent' from Dr Eskander's evidence that he 'lacks insight' and that this was of 'grave concern' and 'informs the ongoing need to protect the public'. He suggested that, when regard was paid to comparable cases (where the determinations for similar conduct had included cancellation and disqualification for up to two years),[32] the 12-month period proposed by the Board was 'proportionate to the objective gravity of the conduct'.
7. In his written submissions Dr Eskander contended that:[33]
   1. The misconduct has already been addressed by the six-month suspension served;[34]
   2. The Respondent has demonstrated genuine remorse, insight, and rehabilitation;
   3. His health and financial circumstances further weigh against the need for ongoing restrictions; and
   4. No further orders, beyond those already endured, are necessary to protect the public.
8. In closing submissions, Mr Chipkin contended that, in light of the evidence, the Tribunal should reject Dr Eskander's claims of insight and rehabilitation, suggesting that he had displayed a 'demonstrated pattern of behaviour of failing to comply with and ignore conditions' on his registration.
9. Mr Chipkin suggested a 'strong inference could be drawn' that Dr Eskander 'prioritised his financial income from treating patients over compliance and protection of patients'. Mr Chipkin contended that Dr Eskander had 'not learnt his lesson' and had 'not developed insight', which reinforced the need for specific deterrence. He also highlighted the lack of credibility of Dr Eskander's evidence as to not working between December 2024 and April 2025, which reflects on his 'truthfulness as a witness' and whether he had demonstrated 'genuine insight'.
10. When we asked Dr Eskander if he wished to make any closing submissions on the question of determinations in light of the submissions of Mr Chipkin, Dr Eskander said he had 'nothing further' and 'would leave it to the Tribunal to decide'.
11. We considered that it was both necessary and appropriate to cancel Dr Eskander's medical registration and to order that he be disqualified from applying for registration for a period of 12 months. In this regard, the evident seriousness of the misconduct highlights the need for general deterrence. That Dr Eskander continues to fail to comply with conditions on his registration demonstrates his lack of genuine insight and remorse, highlighting a strong need for specific deterrence.
12. While we accept that the suspension of Dr Eskander's registration between September 2022 and January 2023 had a deleterious financial impact and may have been a cause of stress for him, it is apparent to us that he has not learnt his lesson and that he remains a risk to the public such that cancellation and disqualification are necessary in order to protect the public.
13. In terms of Dr Eskander's health, it is notable that the only medical evidence before the Tribunal is a letter from a consultant hepatologist suggesting he had a chronic liver condition and would need to stay near a tertiary hospital in the event of an admission being required, and another document indicating that he had an upcoming appointment to discuss a liver transplant. While we accept that his liver condition is serious, there is nothing in those documents to suggest that this (or any other) medical condition operates to reduce his culpability for his conduct, impact on the need for specific deterrence or make him an inappropriate vehicle for general deterrence. As such, the mitigatory impact of his health conditions is slight.

1. We agreed with the Board's submissions that a 12-month period of disqualification remains proportionate. In so finding, we took account of the period that Dr Eskander's registration had been suspended, as well as the fact that he had admitted the conduct the subject of the allegations.

[2] TB, 57-62 (the conditions themselves are at 12-14).

[4] TB, 81, 109-110, 112-113 and 173-174.

[5] TB, 188-195 (and 37-46) and 220-224.

[7] Applicant's Outline of Submissions as to Facts, Findings and Determinations dated 15 July 2025 ('Board's Submissions') [46].

[10] Board's Submissions [62], [63] and [65].

[13] See, for example, Psychology Board of Australia v TOV [2024] VCAT 840 [34] (cited in the Board's Submissions, [57]).

[15] [2024] VCAT 840.

[18] [2019] VCAT 52.

[20] Board's Submissions [67] (citing Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Mallows [2023] VCAT 1357 [77]-[86]).

[22] Written Submissions of the Respondent dated 15 August 2025 ('Respondent's Submissions') [15]-[16].

[24] For completeness, the Tribunal observes that the application to reopen the Tribunal's orders made on 19 August 2025 is misconceived as s 120 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) only permits an order to be reopened where a party did not attend the relevant hearing in person or by representative. As recorded at the end of the orders, Dr Eskander did attended hearing.

[26] Ibid [75] (citing Honey v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria [2007] VCAT 526 [43]).

[31] Subsequently tendered as Exhibit A2.

[32] Board's Submissions [82] (citing Medical Board of Australia v Mbachilin [2024] VCAT 435, Health Care Complaints Commission v Cele [2021] NSWCATOD 221, Health Care Complaints Commission v Townsend [2014] NSWCATOD 65, Osteopathy Board of Australia v Canagasabai [2024] VCAT 358 and Medical Board of Australia v CQW [2021] VCAT 346).

[34] It is noted that the suspension was actually in place between September 2022 and January 2023, a little over four months.