Medical Board of Australia v Mirza

[2] Initially the respondent opposed such an order, but on 4 February 2026 Michael McMillan, a consultant for Daniel Hakim & Associates, emailed the Deputy President's associate and indicated that Dr Mirza 'stated that he does not wish to proceed with his opposition to the (orders) sought by the Board'.

[3] This position was confirmed on 5 February when the solicitor forwarded to the associate correspondence from the respondent in which he indicated he did not wish to contest the matter.

[4] I will make such correspondence of 4 February 2026 and 5 February 2026 exhibits one and two in the hearing of the costs application.

[5] The question to be determined is what sum, if any, ought be ordered to be paid by the respondent to the applicant.

[6] It is the case, as outlined in the affidavit of Kathryn Elizabeth Finlayson and in the applicant's outline of submissions, that the respondent was responsible for significant delay in the prosecution of the matter the subject of Medical Board of Australia v Mirza [2025] QCAT 244. The matter involved Dr Mirza's failing to obtain professional indemnity insurance over a period of about 18 months despite his working as a general practitioner over that period.

[7] His conduct over that time was characterised by inaction. For significant periods he did nothing required of him and, as a result, placed his patients at risk of financial detriment if he had failed in his obligation to effect proper care. Fortunately, such circumstances did not eventuate, but, as I earlier found, he was recklessly indifferent as to whether he had the requisite insurance or not.

[8] That high-handed disregard for others is again shown in his delays in dealing with the applicant's solicitor, both in the initial application and, indeed, in this costs application. Over the course of the applicant's prosecuting the case against the respondent, Dr Mirza repeatedly failed to comply with statutory obligations and Tribunal orders as outlined in Ms Finlayson's affidavit.

[9] Although the usual rule under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ('QCAT Act') is that each party bears its own costs, section 102(1) confers upon the Tribunal a wide discretion to make an appropriate costs order. Any costs order must be one the Tribunal considers to be in the interest of justice. Under section 102(3)(c) non-compliance with Tribunal orders or directions without reasonable excuse is a relevant factor in the exercise of the discretion.

[10] The material outlines a significant history of the respondent's non-compliance with timetabling orders. This conduct led to significant delay and to the applicant incurring unnecessary expense as its solicitors needed to obtain regular re-adjustments to timetables in the prosecution of the matter.

[11] In her affidavit Ms Finlayson outlines the effect of such delay on her firm's costs billed to the applicant. She sets out staff charge out rates, described as 'hourly rates of the core team'. These varied between $297 and $644 per hour. She attests to the Board incurring costs of approximately $48,000 in professional fees and disbursements throughout the proceedings, and says she has 'calculated the Board's costs thrown away attributable to the delays caused by the respondent' at $18,316.10. Of these costs, approximately a third related to the preparation and filing of the costs application itself which is now before me.

[12] Determination of this matter, especially in the absence of any submissions by the respondent, and without the benefit of hearing orally from the applicant's solicitors necessarily involves a broad-brush approach based on my experience and knowledge of such matters. Included in that is my understanding that not all costs incurred by a party, in the absence of justification for the making of an order for full indemnity costs, ought be recovered from the other party.

[13] Adopting such a broad-brush approach, I determine that costs are appropriately ordered to be paid in this case, and determine it is just that the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $10,000 for costs unnecessarily incurred by the applicant in the prosecution of the matter.