SA Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2023-09-13

The applicant also seeks an order that the respondent pay the Board's costs of and incidental to the initiating Application pursuant to s 195 of the National Law and s 57(2) of the SACAT Act. It is usual that costs follow the event.[35] We consider that there is no reason to depart from this general position especially in the absence of any submissions to the contrary from or on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, we will make an order that the respondent is to pay the Board's costs of and incidental to the proceedings in an amount either agreed by the parties or in default of agreement, in an amount determined by the Tribunal.

Finally, the applicant seeks an order under s 60 of the SACAT Act that inspection and publication of certain material contained on the Tribunal's file be restricted or prohibited presumably either in the interests of justice and/or because of the confidential nature of that material. We note that the respondent does not oppose the making of such orders and further, that it is open to the Tribunal making such orders on its own motion. Having considered the matter and in particular, the Interlocutory Application filed by the applicant, we are satisfied that it is appropriate to make the following orders:

56.1 That only the parties to these proceedings or their legal representatives are permitted to inspect the Tribunal file in this matter.

56.2 That the publication of the name, address, or any other material or information tending to identify any witness who gives evidence in these proceedings, except the respondent, be prohibited.

56.3 That the publication or disclosure of the following documents contained in the Board's materials filed on 2 November 2022 be prohibited, namely:

[1] Tribunal Book, Volume 1, P 4.

[10] Chan v Medical Board of South Australia (1986) 41 SASR 434 at 447 (per Cox J).

[12] Code of Conduct, 2.1 and 2.2; Tribunal Book at PP 19 and 479.

[21] See Craig v The Medical Board of South Australia, supra at [41]-[48].

[23] Peeke v Medical Board of Victoria [1994] VicSC 7 at [6].

[35] Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Herzog [2020] SACAT 117 at [108] and Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Monteduro [2020] SACAT 27 at [88].

Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010

Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006

Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Medical Board of Australia v McGavigan [2023] SACAT 65 (13 September 2023)

Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336

Psychology Board of Australia v Griersmith [2019] VCAT 52

Jeremy Buddle v Medical Board of Australia [2022] TASCAT 117

Craig v Medical Board of Australia [2001] SASC 169; (2001) 79 SASR 545

Medical Board of Australia v Singh [2017] WASAT 33 (S)

Pharmacy Board of Australia v Roberts [2022] SACAT 111

Medical Board of Australia v Nicholas [2022] SACAT 98

Marin v Chiropractic Board of Australia [2020] SASCFC 74

Medical Board of Australia v Lee [2019] SACAT 72

Medical Board of Australia v Yu (No. 2) [2021] SACAT 45

Osteopathy Board of Australia v Ratcliff [2021] VCAT 658

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Herzog [2020] SACAT 117

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Monteduro [2020] SACAT 27

Medical Board of Australia v McGavigan [2023] SACAT 65

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (24 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (4)

Cases Cited (18)

Medical Board of Australia v McGavigan [2023] SACAT 65 (13 September 2023)