//
[2026] QCAT 8
General information, not legal advice.
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2026-02-03
Original judgment source is linked above.
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
[1] On 24 March 2025 the Medical Board of Australia (Board) referred the respondent, a generally registered medical practitioner, to the Tribunal pursuant to section 193B(2) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Queensland (National Law) alleging he had breached conditions imposed on his registration by the Board.
[2] The parties signed a statement of agreed facts (SOAF) on 5 August 2025 and filed it in the Tribunal on 6 August 2025. The parties have also filed joint submissions on findings and sanction on 27 October 2025. There are no factual issues in dispute, they agree as to characterisation of the conduct and jointly propose orders for a sanction.
[3] In these circumstances, the Tribunal has considered this matter on the papers[1].
[4] The respondent is an experienced medical practitioner having practised prior to the commencement of the National Law on 1 July 2010. Since this date, the respondent has held registration as a medical practitioner subject to his compliance with the National Law.
[5] The Board imposed conditions on the respondent's registration on 3 June 2019 (2019 Restrictions). The 2019 Restrictions broadly related to supervision and prescribing restrictions, the latter of which prohibited the respondent's access to Schedule 8 medications and limited his access to benzodiazepines.[2]
[6] On 7 January 2020, in response to information received from the Respondent's supervisor regarding a breach of the 2019 Restrictions, the Board decided to suspend the Respondent's registration and investigate his compliance with the 2019 Restrictions. The Respondent appealed the Board's decision to suspend his registration**.**
[7] On 18 May 2020, the Board revoked the suspension and accepted an undertaking from the Respondent prohibiting him from practising as a general practitioner and limiting his practice to an approved position as a general practitioner anaesthetist at Nambour Day Surgery (2020 Restrictions).
[8] On 13 July 2022, the Board removed the 2020 Restrictions.
[9] On 18 August 2022, the Board accepted an undertaking from the respondent under section 156 of the National Law, in summary, that he would limit his practice locations and prohibit his prescribing of Schedule 8 and other monitored medications (2022 Restrictions).
[10] On 8 January 2024 the Board decided to refer the respondent to the Tribunal under section 193(1)(a)(i) of the National Law after it had formed a reasonable belief that the respondent had contravened the 2019 Restrictions and 2022 Restrictions and that this conduct constituted professional misconduct.[3]
[11] Notwithstanding that the parties have filed submissions agreeing on findings as to conduct and sanction, the Tribunal has to determine whether the respondent's conduct is appropriately characterised as professional misconduct and the appropriate sanction.
[12] The following facts are agreed between the parties and the Tribunal proceeds on the basis of them.
[13] Clause 11 of the 2019 Restrictions prohibited the respondent from accessing any medications listed in Schedule 8 of the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of the Medicines and Poisons (SUSMP) as amended from time to time. This did not preclude the administration of opiates as part of the respondent's anaesthetic practice.
[14] In contravention of clause 11, the respondent prescribed Schedule 8 medications on seven occasions from 3 September 2019 to 30 October 2019 to six different patients. The care of five of these patients was shared with other clinicians at the time of prescribing.
[15] On each of the seven occasions, the patients were longtime patients of the respondent and there is no evidence the prescriptions themselves were clinically inappropriate having been previously prescribed by the respondent, prescribed by another practitioner or endorsed by another practitioner on a later date.
[16] On three occasions the respondent's supervisor was present when the prescription was written. On four occasions another health practitioner continued the medication the respondent had prescribed after he had prescribed it. On one occasion another clinician described the prescribing in correspondence as "perfectly sensible".
[17] Clause 12 of the 2019 Restrictions provided:
"The practitioner may only deal with benzodiazepines as follows:
(a) the practitioner may obtain and administer benzodiazepines for the purposes of his Anaesthetic Practice; and
(b) The practitioner may only access diazepam, oxazepam and temazepam in General Practice for the following categories of patient:
(i) Elderly patients;
(ii) Patients receiving palliative care; and
(iii) On a short-term basis for patients who have suffered an acute injury."
[18] Nitrazepam was not a benzodiazepine permitted under clause 12.
[19] The respondent, in contravention of this condition, prescribed nitrazepam on five occasions between 1 July 2019 and 20 September 2019 to four different patients. The respondent mistakenly but genuinely believed that he was able to prescribe nitrazepam under the 2019 Restrictions.
[20] On each of the five occasions the prescriptions were written for longtime patients of the respondent and there is no evidence that the prescriptions were clinically inappropriate. On one occasion the respondent's supervisor was present when the prescription was written. On another occasion the respondent and his supervisor discussed and agreed on the prescription provided to the patient.
[21] Clause 12 of the 2019 Restrictions is set out above. It did not impose requirements that the respondent adequately record the clinical justification for a prescription or that he had considered the risks associated with the prescription. The term 'acute injury' is not defined by the 2019 Restrictions, the National Law and, at the time of prescribing, was not defined in any other literature, guides, policies, position statements or other source by AHPRA or the Board. On 8 January 2021 AHPRA told the respondent that the term 'acute injury' is "usually associated with severe and sudden one-off physical assault to the body" and that this definition of 'acute injury' was "commonly accepted".
[22] On 1 July 2019 the respondent accessed diazepam for the purpose of prescribing to a patient. In the register the respondent was required to maintain as part of the 2019 Restrictions (Register), the recorded reason for his access was "acute muscle spasms". The respondent's clinical records do not adequately record the clinical justification for the prescription or that the respondent had considered the risks associated with the prescription. The respondent admits the condition for which the patient was receiving treatment was long-standing and that the prescribing continued beyond the 'short-term' as required for his access to be permitted under clause 12(b)(iii) of the conditions.
[23] On 28 August 2019 the respondent prescribed temazepam to a different patient. In the Register the respondent recorded the reason as "acute panic attacks". The respondent's clinical records do not adequately record the clinical justification for the prescription or that the respondent considered the risks associated with the prescription. The respondent's clinical record for the patient's appointment on 28 August 2019 does not record that the patient suffered from acute panic attacks and in a submission to the Board the respondent stated the medication was prescribed to address acute insomnia related to workplace sexual harassment.
[24] On 11 September 2019 the respondent prescribed temazepam to another patient and recorded the reason for the prescription in the Register as "acute insomnia". The respondent's clinical records do not adequately record the clinical justification for the prescription or that the respondent considered the risks associated with the prescription. The respondent's clinical records for the patient's appointment on 11 September 2019 do not record that the patient suffered from acute insomnia.
[25] On 29 August 2019 the respondent prescribed temazepam to another patient and listed the reason for the prescription in the Register as "acute insomnia". The respondent's clinical records for the patient's appointment on 29 August 2019 do not adequately record the clinical justification for the prescription or that the respondent considered the risks associated with the prescription. The respondent's clinical records do not record that the patient had been suffering from acute insomnia.
[26] On 10 October 2019 the respondent prescribed temazepam to another patient and recorded the reason for the prescription in the Register as "acute insomnia". The respondent's clinical records do not adequately record the clinical justification for the prescription or that the respondent considered the risks associated with the prescription.
[27] On 15 October 2019 the respondent prescribed temazepam to another patient and recorded the reason for the prescription in the Register as "acute insomnia". The respondent's clinical records do not adequately record the clinical justification for the prescription or that the respondent considered the risks associated with the prescription and do not record that the patient had been suffering from acute insomnia but do show the patient was prescribed temazepam regularly for approximately 12 months and the prescription the respondent issued was not issued on a 'short term' basis.
[28] On 30 October 2019 the respondent prescribed temazepam to another patient and listed the reason for prescription in the Register as "Insomnia Short Term". The respondent's clinical records for the patient's appointment on 30 October 2019 did not record that the patient had been suffering from short term insomnia. The clinical records for the patient show the patient was prescribed temazepam approximately on a monthly basis from November 2017 to December 2020 and the prescription the respondent issued was not issued on a 'short term' basis.
[29] Clause 14 of the 2019 Restrictions provided:
"The practitioner must keep an auditable register of all prescribing in General Practice. The register must contain the following information:
(a) Patient's name and date of birth;
(b) Date that medication was 'accessed';
(c) Medication 'accessed'
(d) where the medication 'accessed' was diazepam, oxazepam or temazepam:
(i) a record of the category of patient with reference to the condition in accordance with clause 12(b);
(ii) a record of the enquiries the practitioner has undertaken to satisfy himself that the patient is not a drug dependant person including for example when the practitioner contacted MCHTU" (Medicines Compliance and Human Tissue Unit) "to confirm the patient is not a drug dependant person and/or a participant on the QOTP" (Queensland Opioid Treatment Program) "and/or not obtaining benzodiazepines from another practitioner; and
(iii) the signature of an approved supervisor who has sighted the auditable register as soon as practicable after the consultation but on the same day as the prescribing."
[30] Between 1 July 2019 and 9 December 2019, the respondent failed to maintain a register of his prescribing in general practice on 58 occasions in contravention of clause 14. The Tribunal observes its review of the schedule attached to the SOAF indicates that this involved 36 separate patients over the course of 41 consultations.
[31] On 18 August 2022 the respondent provided an undertaking to the Board not to prescribe any Schedule 8 or Schedule 4 drugs and that this was imposed as a condition on his registration (clause 1 of the 2022 Restrictions).
[32] The respondent contravened clause 1 of the 2022 Restrictions on five occasions as follows:
(a) On 14 October 2022, the respondent prescribed Quetiapine 100mg tablet (90) to a patient. On the same day, he prescribed a Quetiapine 25mg table (60) to another patient.
(b) On 15 October 2022, the respondent again prescribed Quetiapine 25mg tablet (60) to one of the 14 October patients.
(c) On 2 November 2022, the respondent prescribed Quetiapine 100mg tablet (90) to another patient.
(d) On 8 November 2022, the respondent prescribed Quetiapine 25mg tablet (60) to another patient.
[33] On 16 November 2022, the respondent self-reported to the Board that he had prescribed Quetiapine to a patient on 14 October 2022 due to a "lapse in memory", which had been brought to his attention by a community pharmacist.
[34] Quetiapine was designated a Schedule 4 drug under the Medicines and Poisons (Medicines) Regulation 2021 on 27 September 2021. On 21 December 2022 the respondent admitted to the five contraventions of the restriction that occurred between 14 October 2022 and 8 November 2022.
[35] In the parties' joint submissions, the parties submit the respondent was at the time of prescribing, unaware that Quetiapine had been added as a schedule 4 drug and the respondent accepts that it was incumbent upon him to have been aware of that change.
Are the parties' agreements as to characterisation and sanction appropriate ?
[36] The parties jointly submit that the respondent's conduct with respect to each allegation was substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience and amounts to professional misconduct within the meaning of section 5(a) of the National Law.
[37] There are repeated breaches of the 2019 Restrictions represented by Allegations 1 to 4, commencing from shortly after those restrictions were imposed and occurring over an approximate six month period in the second half of 2019. These breaches are more than technical, although the parties accept that the actual conduct in Allegation 1 was not clinically inappropriate and the actual conduct in Allegation 2 was mistaken and unintentional. The matters in Allegation 5 represent five events, involving four patients, over a little more than a month, which he self reported one of, to the Board on becoming aware of the breach, which, again, is accepted, was an unintentional breach.
[38] As was observed in an earlier decision of this Tribunal involving a single breach of condition by this practitioner "...the public and other medical practitioners would expect such an experienced practitioner to understand the importance of compliance with conditions on his registration and not to knowingly disregard them"[4].
[39] This is serious conduct and conduct which is, as the parties submit, as a whole substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience.
[40] On the basis of the SOAF, the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the respondent's conduct can be characterised as professional misconduct within s 5(a) of the National Law.
[41] Having made such a conclusion as to the characterisation the Tribunal turns to sanction.
[42] The parties propose as an agreed position on sanction:[5]
(a) that the respondent be reprimanded under section 196(2)(a) of the National Law;
(b) that the respondent's registration be suspended for a period of 12 months to commence 60 days after the date of the Tribunal's orders under section 196(2)(d) of the National Law;
(c) following the period of suspension, that conditions be imposed on the respondent's registration under section 196(2)(b) of the National Law. The proposed conditions are attached to these reasons and marked Annexure A; and
(d) an order that a review period of 2 months will apply to the conditions pursuant to section 196(3) of the National Law.
[43] As the parties jointly submit, where the Tribunal is persuaded that a penalty proposed by the parties is appropriate, it is highly desirable practice to accept the proposal and there is an important public policy benefit in doing so[6]. The Tribunal ought determine sanction based on whether the Tribunal can be satisfied of the proposed penalty's appropriateness. Any agreement between the parties is a highly relevant matter[7].
[44] The main guiding principles are that the health and safety of the public, and public confidence in the safety of services provided by registered health practitioners, are paramount[8]. It is well understood that the purpose of disciplinary proceedings and any sanction imposed is protective, not punitive. It is also accepted that the penalty required to protect the public may be more severe than would be the case if punishment of the practitioner was the only consideration. The impact of a particular penalty upon the practitioner, including any personal hardship that the practitioner may suffer, is necessarily a 'secondary consideration'.
[45] There are well established considerations for the Tribunal on a disciplinary referral:[9]
(a) preventing practitioners who are unfit to practice from practising;
(b) bringing home to the practitioner the seriousness of their conduct;
(c) deterring the practitioner from future departure from the appropriate standards or others who might be minded to act in a similar way; and
(d) imposing restrictions on the practitioner's right to practice to ensure public protection.
[46] The Tribunal, in determining sanction, should also assess the ongoing risk posed by the practitioner. In performing the assessment, the degree to which the practitioner has acquired insight will be relevant.[10]
[47] Insight and remorse shown by the practitioner, evidence of rehabilitation or steps taken to prevent recurrence, and other matters including past disciplinary history, periods of preclusion, delay and effluxion of time and cooperation during disciplinary proceedings are also relevant considerations[11].
[48] There is a disciplinary history. The respondent has a history of non-compliance with restrictions placed on his registration. The parties' joint articulation of the relevant aspects of this history is:
(a) On 5 December 2022 the Board notified the respondent that it had decided to caution him for contravening the terms of restrictions imposed on his registration on 20 May 2020 by failing to nominate a mentor for approval by the Board within the extended specified timeframe, being 26 August 2022[12].
(b) The 20 May 2020 undertakings required the respondent to undertake mentoring in relation to treatment of eating disorders. The respondent was required to nominate a mentor for the Board's approval by 26 August 2022. The respondent nominated a mentor but did not attach their curriculum vitae (CV) to the nomination form as was required. The provision of the CV was delayed because the respondent's mentor was unwell. It was provided to the Board on 31 August 2022.
(c) On 5 December 2022, the Board also notified the respondent that it had decided to caution him for contravening the terms of the restrictions imposed on his registration on 18 August 2022 by failing to submit relevant forms within the specified timeframe, being 25 August 2022[13].
(d) The respondent submitted his failure to provide the required documents to complete his relevant forms was an unintentional omission which occurred because of a misunderstanding as to what was required of him. Upon receipt of advice from Aphra of the outstanding documents, he immediately took steps to rectify his non-compliance, providing the required documents to Aphra on 26 August 2022[14].
(e) On 8 July 2024, the Board cautioned the respondent for contravening the terms of the 2 May 2024 restrictions imposed on his registration by failing to submit a complete education nomination for approval by the Board within the specified timeframe, being no later than 30 May 2024.
(f) On 20 December 2024, Judicial Member Robertson delivered a judgment which ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and fined $10,000 for practising as a General Practitioner in breach of 3 June 2019 restrictions[15]. The conduct the subject of this proceeding occurred on 21 September 2020. The Tribunal has reviewed the reasons and notes it was a single instance contravention and was not clinically inappropriate.
(g) On 4 March 2025, the Board cautioned the respondent for contravening the 10 December 2018 restrictions imposed on his registration by failing to, within the specified timeframe, an auditor for approval by the Board.
(h) Between March 2019 and April 2023 the respondent had submitted to five audits by Dr Smyth. Following his return from suspension in May 2024, the respondent sought for Dr Smyth to again act as an auditor, however she was unable to do so. The respondent subsequently nominated Dr Amirthanandan as an auditor. On 17 October 2024 the Board approved the nomination.
[49] A reprimand is not a trivial penalty.[16] It is appropriate to impose a reprimand to mark the Tribunal's disapproval of the respondent's conduct in failing, on multiple occasions, to comply with conditions on his registration which he was aware of and knew he had to comply with.
[50] The parties have provided a number of cases involving registered health practitioners who have been dealt with for breach of conditions. In some instances, the Tribunal ordered cancellation of registration and disqualification for one to three years before the practitioner could apply to be registered. The parties jointly submit that in each of those circumstances there was additional conduct which was of an objectively more serious nature than the respondent's conduct. Having reviewed the cases themselves, the Tribunal is persuaded by the force of that submission. In others they ordered a period of suspension.
[51] The Tribunal was most assisted by Health Ombudsman v Kadrian [2022] QCAT 350. In that case, an experienced general practitioner with a relevant disciplinary history was dealt with for a variety of transgressions, including, relevantly, breaching undertakings given to the Board and breaching conditions imposed by the Board on his registration. He breached the undertakings provided on 44 occasions and breached a condition to practice under supervision on 10 occasions. The Tribunal noted these breaches arose in parallel or consequent upon the practitioner providing treatment to close personal relations, which were the subject of some of the other allegations referred as part of this proceeding. The Tribunal observed relevantly that conditions imposed by a regulator and undertakings given to a regulator must be scrupulously observed, the breaches were not technical or fleeting but occurred on numerous occasions over a lengthy period of time and occurred in circumstances where the practitioner ought to have been aware that providing such treatment constituted contraventions of his undertakings and the conditions, particularly after he had been cautioned for breach of the undertaking, but on a few further occasions continued the conduct. The Tribunal found the breaches to be of mid range seriousness, occurring on 54 occasions in total of which nine occurred after being cautioned for breach of the undertaking. The Tribunal observed in Kadrian that the conduct did not represent the most serious example of this type of conduct because it did not involve a deliberate flouting of the regulator's authority or a breach of conditions imposed by the Tribunal after a disciplinary hearing. The Tribunal reprimanded Dr Kadrian and imposed a suspension period of six (6) months on his registration.
[52] The parties submit that the sanction agreed between them is appropriate on the bases that:
(a) the respondent's failure to comply with restrictions imposed to protect the public had the potential to cause serious harm to patients;
(b) the respondent's conduct was serious and, as a whole, substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience;
(c) where, in the authorities provided, the Tribunal had ordered cancellation of the medical practitioner's registration, with a disqualification period of one to three years before the practitioner has been able to apply for registration again, and where in each of these instances, there has been additional conduct which is of an objectively more serious nature than the respondent's conduct, such as:
(i) forgery of requests for medical assessment documentation;[17]
(ii) misleading, inconsistent and/or untruthful information provided to the Medical Council;[18]
(iii) deliberately withholding information;[19]
(iv) self-prescription of medications;[20]
(v) prescription medication and/or alcohol misuse dependence;[21] and
(vi) lack of adequate research into a client's history and overprescribing schedule 8 drugs, causing death.[22]
(d) the time which it has taken to investigate the grounds of the referral has been significant in that:
(i) with regard to the 2019 Restrictions, the Board was made aware of the breaches on 5 November 2019 with the investigation commencing on 6 January 2020. The Board's investigation ended on 8 January 2024, noting that the investigation of the breaches of the 2022 Restrictions were joined with to the investigation of the 2019 Restrictions. There was a period of approximately four (4) years between the notification and conclusion of the investigation; and
(ii) with regard to the 2022 Restrictions, the Board was made aware of the breaches on 16 November 2022. The investigation concluded on 8 January 2024. There was a period of approximately two (2) years between the notification and the conclusion of the investigation.
(e) the respondent's disciplinary history with respect to various instances of non-compliance with restrictions, as already set out;
(f) the consideration of totality due to:
(i) the sanction imposed by Judicial Member Robertson in Tribunal proceedings[23] which arose from the respondent's prescribing to patients between 2011 and 2019, and was delivered on 21 August 2024, after the conduct the subject of this referral had occurred;
(ii) the sanction imposed by Judicial Member Robertson in Tribunal proceedings[24] which arose from the respondent's treatment of a single patient in breach of a restriction on his registration and was delivered on 20 December 2024, after the conduct the subject of this referral had occurred.
[53] The parties further point to evidence of insight and reflection demonstrated by the respondent. In March 2025, the respondent completed a program of education approved by the Board. This included a reflective practice report in relation to clinical record-keeping and prescribing drugs of dependence. The reflective practice report has been provided to the Tribunal and been considered by it.
[54] The parties also jointly submit the need for personal deterrence is low in circumstances where the respondent has shown remorse and insight into his actions and made full admissions as to the conduct giving rise to the allegations. He has also been cooperative through the investigation process of these proceedings, including by agreeing to the facts to be put before the Tribunal and the sanction to be imposed, obviating the need for a contested hearing.
[55] There are more breaches of conditions in this case, than in Kadrian. Significantly, too, the matters in Allegation 5 arose at a time when the respondent knew he was being investigated for similar breaches, which are the matters the subject of Allegations 1 to 4.
[56] A period of suspension of registration of twelve months is longer than the period imposed in Kadrian. It is a significant sanction, and the Tribunal considers it is appropriate to impose it to mark the importance of registered health practitioners scrupulously complying with conditions imposed by the Board, or undertakings given to the Board. This is to ensure the regulation of registered health practitioners is appropriate to achieve the paramount purposes of the National Law to protect the public and to maintain public confidence in the safety of services provided by registered health practitioners.
[57] The conditions proposed by the parties on the return of the respondent to practice will also assist to remind him of the standards he needs to meet to satisfy the ethical and professional standards of medical practitioners who have conditions on their registration. The Tribunal observes it would be extraordinarily concerning if the respondent was to again breach conditions on his registration upon a return to practice.
[58] The Tribunal is satisfied the matters submitted by the parties are established on the material before it and that the sanction proposed by the parties is appropriate to balance the objective seriousness of the respondent's conduct and his relevant disciplinary history with the insight and remorse he has shown, totality considerations arising in the particular circumstances and the cooperation he has provided in the resolution of these proceedings.
[59] The Tribunal thanks the assessors for their assistance in the determination of this referral.
(a) within seven days of the commencement of practice at each subsequent place of practice; and
(b) within seven days of each and every notice of any subsequent alteration of these conditions.
[1] Section 32 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
[2] Agreed Bundle (AB) p A2 at [3].
[4] Health Ombudsman v Heath [2024] QCAT 531 at [8].
[6] Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Little (Review and Regulation) [2020] CAT 687 at [44].
[7] Medical Board of Australia v McGrath [2014] VCAT 641 at [19] - [21].
[9] Craig v South Australia [2001] SASC 169; (2001) 79 SASR 545 at [553] - [555].
[10] Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Lockie [2022] QCAT 391 ('Lockie') at [71] citing Medical Board of Australia v Bromeley [2018] QCAT 163 at [142].
[11] Health Ombudsman v Grigg [2022] QCAT 266 at [35].
[15] Health Ombudsman v Heath [2024] QCAT 531 ('Heath'); AB p A34, [44].
[16] Psychology Board of Australia v Cameron [2015] QCAT 227 at [25].
[17] Medical Board of Australia v Murphy [2020] SACAT 112 ('Murphy').
[18] Health Care Complaints Commission v Cakan [2018] NSWCATOD 5.
[19] Health Care Complaints Commission v Hampshire [2020] NSWCATOD 79.
[21] Hampshire; Health Care Complaints Commission v Borg [2020] NSWCATOD 141.
[22] Ting v Health Ombudsman [2023] QCA 180.
[23] Health Ombudsman and Anor v Heath [2024] QCAT 303.
[24] Health Ombudsman v Heath [2024] QCAT 531.
Medical Board of Australia
Heath [2026] QCAT 8
Craig v South Australia [2001] SASC 169; (2001) 79 SASR 545
Health Care Complaints Commission v Borg [2020] NSWCATOD 141
Health Care Complaints Commission v Hampshire [2020] NSWCATOD 79
Health Ombudsman v Grigg [2022] QCAT 266
Health Ombudsman and Anor v Heath [2024] QCAT 303
Health Ombudsman v Heath [2024] QCAT 531
Medical Board of Australia v Blomeley [2018] QCAT 163
Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376
Medical Board of Australia v McGrath [2014] VCAT 641
Medical Board of Australia v Murphy [2020] SACAT 112
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Lockie [2022] QCAT 391
Psychology Board of Australia v Cameron [2015] QCAT 227
Ting v Health Ombudsman [2023] QCA 180
(2001) 79 SASR 545