Parasher v Podiatry Council of New South Wales

File Number(s): 2025/00341489

Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The applicant, a podiatrist, applied to reinstate his appeal against a decision of the respondent (the Council) to suspend his registration. The appeal was dismissed when he failed to appear at a hearing.

2. The applicant lives overseas. Before the hearing, he applied to the Tribunal three times for leave to appear at the hearing by audio-visual link. On each occasion, his application was refused. The applicant contended that he had a reasonable explanation for his failure to appear at the hearing because he lived overseas and it was not practicable for him to attend.

3. I have found, as a matter of fact, that the applicant did not have a reasonable explanation for his failure to attend the hearing. I have therefore dismissed his reinstatement application, with costs.

Background

4. Dr Parasher ceased full-time clinical practice in January 2023. He has not practised in Australia since June 2024 and currently resides overseas.

5. On 6 August 2025, the Council gave Dr Parasher notice that it had suspended his registration that day under s 150 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) (National Law).

6. On 5 September 2025, Dr Parasher appealed to the Tribunal under s 159 of the National Law from the Council’s decision to suspend his registration.

7. On 30 September 2025, Dr Parasher emailed the Tribunal, seeking to appear at the hearing scheduled for 16 February 2026 by audio visual link, given that he was currently residing in the United Arab Emirates. The Council opposed his application on the basis that Dr Parasher was required for cross examination and the Tribunal needed to assess his credibility. It also stated that in earlier proceedings his internet connection was not always reliable.

8. On 13 October 2025, the Tribunal, constituted by Principal Member Robinson, refused Dr Parasher’s application to appear by audio visual link.

9. On 27 October 2025, Dr Parasher emailed the Tribunal again. He stated that the Council’s objection to him appearing via audio visual link was unreasonable. He stated further that, given that he lived outside Australia, requiring physical attendance imposed a significant and disproportionate burden on him. He submitted that preventing his appearance by audio visual link in effect denied him participation in the hearing which would amount to a denial of procedural fairness. Dr Parasher repeated his request to appear by audio-visual link.

10. On 3 November 2025, the Tribunal, constituted by the Hon T Sheahan, Principal Member, confirmed the decision made on 13 October 2025 to refuse the applicant’s request to attend the hearing by audio-visual link.

11. On 5 February 2026, Dr Parasher emailed the Registrar, reiterating his request to have audio-visual access to the hearing. He stated that to require physical attendance without justification constituted a denial of procedural fairness. He offered to appear from a verified venue with secure internet and made some other undertakings.

12. On 9 February 2026, Dr Parasher emailed the Registrar, providing some further submissions in support of his application to attend the hearing by audio-visual link. By email dated 10 February 2026, the respondent maintained its objection to the application.

13. On 11 February 2026, the Tribunal, constituted by the Hon T Sheahan, Principal Member, made the following order:

“The AVL request has been twice refused and is again refused, on the grounds that the applicant is required for cross-examination and the Tribunal wishes to observe cross-examination in person.”

14. On 16 February 2026, the day of the scheduled hearing date, the Tribunal (constituted by the Hon T Sheahan, Principal Member, N Diamond, Senior Member, J Thompson, Senior Member and R Kusuma, General Member) ordered: “Respondent’s application for summary dismissal (s 55(1)(c)) upheld, with costs thrown away.”

15. Section 55(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act) provides:

“55 Dismissal of proceedings

(1) The Tribunal may dismiss at any stage any proceedings before it in any of the following circumstances—

…

(c) if the applicant or appellant (or, if there is more than one applicant or appellant, each applicant or appellant) has failed to appear in the proceedings, …”

16. On 23 February 2026, Dr Parasher lodged an application to reinstate the proceedings. Directions were made by the Tribunal for the parties to file and serve submissions and materials on the reinstatement application, including submissions as to whether the matter could be determined on the papers. Both parties did so.

Determination of the reinstatement application without a hearing

17. Dr Parasher submitted that the preferable course would be a short hearing conducted by audio-visual link but also stated that, if the Tribunal considered that the issues could adequately be determined on the papers, he was content for the application to be determined on that basis. The Council submitted that the Tribunal should dispense with a hearing of the reinstatement application.

18. I am satisfied that the issues for determination on the reinstatement application can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties by considering any written submissions or any other documents or material lodged with or provided to the Tribunal (NCAT Act, s 50(2)). I also consider that determination of that application on the papers would best facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings (NCAT Act, s 36(1)). Accordingly, I have made an order dispensing with a hearing of the reinstatement application.

Power to reinstate

19. The Tribunal has power under s 55(2) of the NCAT Act to reinstate proceedings that have been dismissed under s 55(1)(c) if it considers that there is a reasonable explanation for the failure of an applicant or appellant to appear in the proceedings. If satisfied that there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to attend, the Tribunal has a discretion to reinstate the appeal: Wallace v Price [2017] NSWCATAP 151 at [25].

20. Rule 36 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) requires an application to be made “within 7 days after the Tribunal dismissed the proceedings that are sought to be reinstated” unless the Tribunal grants an extension of time under s 41 of the NCAT Act. There is no dispute that the application was filed within time.

Does Dr Parasher have a reasonable explanation for his failure to appear?

21. Dr Parasher submitted that he was not unwilling to attend the hearing, but that he was unable to attend physically in circumstances where remote participation was the only reasonable and proportionate means of participation.

22. Dr Parasher submitted that a reasonable explanation for his non-attendance plainly exists. He said that the non-attendance arose from circumstances outside his practical control, namely:

23. Permanent residence overseas;

24. The refusal of audio-visual link participation; and

25. The absence of any practical ability to travel internationally to attend in person.

26. The Council submitted that Dr Parasher had not provided a reasonable explanation for his failure to appear in circumstances where the Tribunal had refused his request to appear by audio-visual link on three occasions. It said that no good reason had been given as to why Dr Parasher did not take a flight to Sydney for the purpose of the hearing, and no adjournment was sought.

27. In reply, Dr Parasher submitted that the consequence of the Tribunal’s refusal of remote participation was a practical inability on his part to attend physically on 16 February 2026. He said this was not a challenge to the Tribunal’s rulings, but a factual result of those rulings. He submitted that he “had no practical means of attending a Sydney hearing at short notice.”

28. In his reply submissions, Dr Parasher confirmed that he would attend a hearing in person if required.

29. I am not satisfied that Dr Parasher has provided a reasonable explanation for his failure to appear at the hearing on 16 February 2026. He was not required to attend the hearing “at short notice.” His email dated 29 September 2025 referred to the date of the hearing being 16 February 2026. That was three and a half months before the hearing. His first application to appear at the hearing by audio-visual link was refused on 13 October 2025, about three months before the hearing. That provided him with ample time to make arrangements for travel to attend the hearing.

30. Dr Parasher’s permanent residence overseas is not a reasonable explanation for his failure to appear at the hearing, in circumstances where he had at least three and a half months’ notice of the hearing. That is particularly so when the proceedings concern his entitlement to practise a profession in New South Wales.

31. Dr Parasher relies upon his lack of “practical ability” to travel internationally. However, there is no evidence which demonstrates that he was practically unable to travel. The Tribunal accepts that travel may have been expensive. However, there is no evidence that Dr Parasher could not afford to travel, or that there was any other reason he could not attend the hearing as a matter of practicality.

32. Nor has Dr Parasher provided any evidence to establish that living overseas was a “circumstance outside his practical control”.

33. It is not the Tribunal’s role, on a reinstatement application, to consider whether previous orders made by the Tribunal were reasonable or proportionate. Dr Parasher was under a duty to co-operate with the Tribunal to give effect to the guiding principle and, for that purpose, to participate in the processes of the Tribunal and to comply with directions and orders of the Tribunal (NCAT Act, s 36(3)). He did not do so. The implicit challenge to the Tribunal’s orders in Dr Parasher’s description of remote participation as “the only reasonable and proportionate means of participation” cannot convert a failure to comply with the Tribunal’s orders into a reasonable explanation for non-appearance.

34. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that Dr Parasher has provided a reasonable explanation for his failure to appear at the hearing. The power to reinstate is therefore not enlivened.

35. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the discretionary considerations which would have arisen had I found that there was a reasonable explanation for Dr Parasher’s failure to appear.

Costs

33. The Council sought its costs of the reinstatement application pursuant to clause 13 of Sch 5D to the National Law. Dr Parasher submitted that, if reinstatement is granted, no order as to costs should be made.

34. Clause 13(1) provides:

“13 Tribunal may award costs [NSW]

(1) The Tribunal may order the complainant (if any), the registered health practitioner or student concerned, or any other person entitled to appear (whether as of right or because leave to appear has been granted) at an inquiry or appeal before the Tribunal to pay costs to another person as decided by the Tribunal.”

35. Clause 13 applies instead of s 60 (Costs) of the NCAT Act (National Law, Sch 5D, cl 13(4)). Costs normally follow the event in this jurisdiction (see Health Care Complaints Commission v Khalighimonfared (No 2) [2022] NSWCATOD 101 at [3]; Health Care Complaints Commission v Brush (No. 2) [2015] NSWCATOD 154 at [7]). Generally, an award of costs is compensatory (Mnyandu v Health Care Complaints Commission [2015] NSWCATOD 43 at [130]).

36. Dr Parasher has not provided any reason why he should not be ordered to pay costs if unsuccessful on his reinstatement application. In this case, costs should follow the event and the Council should be compensated for its costs in defending the application. I have accordingly ordered Dr Parasher to pay the Council’s costs of the application as agreed or assessed.

Orders

37. I make the following orders:

38. A hearing of the applicant’s reinstatement application is dispensed with.

39. The applicant’s reinstatement application is dismissed.

40. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the reinstatement application as agreed or assessed.

**********

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. Registrar