JAMIL v SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL & ANOR [2026] SASCA 75

On Appeal from SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE BAMPTON) CIV-26-006993 Applicant: SHAMYAL HAROON JAMIL In Person First Respondent: SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL No Attendance Second Respondent: MEDICAL BOARD OF AUSTRALIA Counsel: MS H LUU - Solicitor: MINTERELLISON Hearing Date/s: 26/06/2026 File No/s: CIV-26-007122 B SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Court of Appeal: Civil) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated. JAMIL v SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL & ANOR [2026] SASCA 75 Ruling of the Honourable President Livesey (ex tempore) 26 June 2026 APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - OTHER MATTERS This is an application for the expedited hearing and determination of an appeal. In December 2023, the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) made a finding of professional misconduct against the applicant concerning his conduct during June and July 2020 involving two medical students undertaking placement at the hospital at which he was employed. The applicant was unsuccessful in appealing that decision to a single judge of the General Division in 2024, in seeking leave to adduce further evidence and in seeking leave to appeal from this Court in 2025. Applications for special leave to appeal this Court’s decisions were dismissed by the High Court. As the applicant had exhausted his appeal rights, a sanctions hearing was listed for 3 June 2026. The applicant applied to have that hearing deferred, but that was refused. On 2 June 2026, the applicant filed an originating application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s initial professional misconduct decision. The applicant says that he has discovered evidence that the decision was tainted by perjury and fraud. He requires an extension of time. Another judge of the General Division dismissed the originating application and refused the application for an extension of time on the grounds that the application had no reasonable prospects of success, and the applicant was attempting to relitigate matters that had already been determined by the Tribunal, by a judge of the General Division and by this Court. -- 1 of 8 -- Later that same day, the applicant filed a notice of appeal against that decision, which appeal is the subject of the current application for expedition. The applicant also filed an application seeking a stay of the sanctions hearing, which was refused by Bleby JA shortly before the sanctions hearing on 3 June 2026. The sanctions hearing proceeded and, on 17 June 2026, the Tribunal made orders imposing numerous sanctions. The applicant says that expedition of the hearing of the appeal is “urgently necessary” because the Tribunal’s initial finding of professional misconduct is “pending the determination and publication of sanctions”. He says that allowing the decision and sanctions imposed by the Tribunal to stand denies him procedural fairness. The Tribunal has entered a submitting appearance and otherwise abides the determination of the Court. The second respondent, the Board, opposes the application for expedition. The solicitors for the complainants have applied for access to the file because they apprehend that their clients’ interests may be affected. Yesterday, the applicant applied for orders preventing the Board from participating because it had not filed documents in answer to the applicant’s documents. Held, dismissing the application for expedition: 1. The principles concerning whether to grant expedition in the hearing of an appeal are similar to those which apply when considering whether to expedite hearings in the conduct of litigation more generally. Whilst this Court has a broad discretion, and a range of considerations will be relevant, it is necessary to recognise that an order for an expedited appeal hearing will not be granted as a matter of course. 2. It does not appear that the applicant’s grounds for setting aside the order for dismissal of the judicial review proceedings are strong. However, even if it is assumed that there are reasonably arguable grounds, they do not support a case for urgency or expedition. The other matters relied on by the applicant do not suggest that this is a proper case for expedition in the hearing of this appeal. 3. The appeal is listed for hearing before the Court of Appeal on 11 December 2026. Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 (SA) ss 196(2), 196(4); Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA), referred to. Croser v Croser [2025] SASCA 145; Greetings Oxford Koala Hotel Pty Ltd v Oxford Square Investments Pty Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 33; Flowers v Finlayson (No 2) [2023] SASCA 12; Hyde v Hyde & Ors [2026] SASCA 11; Hyde v Hyde & Ors [2026] SASCA 13; Jamil v Medical Board of Australia [2024] SASC 90; Jamil v Medical Board of Australia [2025] SASCA 103; Jamil v Medical Board of Australia [2025] SASCA 130; Jamil v Medical Board of Australia [2026] HCADisp 35; Jamil v Medical Board of Australia [2026] HCADisp 36; Marshall Rural Pty Ltd v Basscave Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 86; Medical Board of Australia v Jamil [2023] SACAT 104; O’Connor v The King [2026] SASCA 43; Re Securities and Exchange Commission [2020] NSWSC 1212, considered. -- 2 of 8 -- JAMIL v SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL & ANOR [2026] SASCA 75 Court of Appeal – Civil – Application LIVESEY P (ex tempore): Introduction 1 This is an application for the expedited hearing and determination of an appeal. The applicant’s appeal is concerned with the dismissal of his originating application seeking judicial review of the Tribunal’s finding of professional misconduct. The applicant says that he has discovered evidence that the decision was tainted by perjury and fraud. 2 The first respondent, the Tribunal, has entered a submitting appearance and otherwise abides the determination of the Court. The second respondent, the Board, opposes the application for expedition. Solicitors for the complainants have applied for access to the file because they apprehend that their clients’ interests may be affected in this proceeding. 3 Yesterday, the applicant applied for orders preventing the Board from participating because it had not filed documents in answer to the applicant’s documents. 4 For the following reasons, the application for expedition is refused and the Board is not prevented from participating today or in the appeal. Preliminary matters 5 At the outset, I will address the positions of the Board and the complainants. Without descending into detail about the applicant’s views about the operation of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA), it is sufficient to observe that this application has come on quickly at the applicant’s request. It is appropriate to hear from the Board regardless whether documents have been filed. The attempt to preclude the Board from answering the appeal more generally is without merit. 6 As for the complainants, given that they have at least a prospective interest, and the applicant has consented, they have leave to access the documents which have been filed on this appeal. Background to this application 7 On 1 December 2023, the Tribunal made a finding of professional misconduct against the applicant concerning his conduct involving two medical -- 3 of 8 -- [2026] SASCA 75 Livesey P 2 students undertaking placements at the hospital at which he was employed during June and July 2020.1 8 The applicant appealed the Tribunal’s finding to a judge of the General Division, who dismissed his appeal.2 At the joint request of the parties, the Tribunal deferred the imposition of sanctions pending the outcome of the appeal. 9 The applicant sought leave to appeal the decision of the single judge to this Court and, in addition, he filed an application to adduce further evidence on appeal. That application was refused by Stanley JA.3 10 On 20 November 2025, following a hearing, this Court refused leave to appeal against the decisions of the single judge and Stanley JA.4 Applications for special leave to appeal this Court’s decisions were dismissed by the High Court.5 11 As the applicant had exhausted his appeal rights concerning the Tribunal’s finding of professional misconduct, a sanctions hearing was listed for 3 June 2026. The applicant applied to have that hearing deferred, but that was refused.6 12 On 2 June 2026, the day before the sanctions hearing, the applicant filed an originating application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s initial professional misconduct decision. This was said to be on the basis that he had discovered evidence that the decision was tainted by perjury and fraud. The applicant also sought an extension of time to commence judicial review proceedings. 13 Another judge of the General Division dismissed the originating application and refused the application for an extension of time on the grounds that the application had no reasonable prospects of success, and the applicant was attempting to relitigate matters that had already been determined by the Tribunal, by a judge of the General Division and by this Court.7 14 Later that same day, the applicant filed a notice of appeal against that decision, which appeal is the subject of the current application for expedition. The applicant also filed an application seeking a stay of the sanctions hearing, which was refused by Bleby JA shortly before the sanctions hearing on 3 June 2026.8 15 At the sanctions hearing on 3 June 2026, the applicant applied to adjourn it pending the outcome of these appeal proceedings. The Tribunal indicated that there was no basis for the matter to be adjourned, finding that “the fact that a 1 Medical Board of Australia v Jamil [2023] SACAT 104. 2 Jamil v Medical Board of Australia [2024] SASC 90. 3 Jamil v Medical Board of Australia [2025] SASCA 103. 4 Jamil v Medical Board of Australia [2025] SASCA 130. 5 Jamil v Medical Board of Australia [2026] HCADisp 35; Jamil v Medical Board of Australia [2026] HCADisp 36. 6 Direction of the Tribunal, Medical Board of Australia v Jamil (2022/SHP000017, Senior Member Stevens, 11 May 2026, Unpublished). 7 Ruling of Bampton J delivered on 2 June 2026 (CIV-26-006993). 8 Ruling of Bleby JA delivered on 3 June 2026 (FDN 9). -- 4 of 8 -- [2026] SASCA 75 Livesey P 3 decision is subject to challenge is not a sufficient basis to divert the Tribunal from its responsibility to conclude the matter before it”.9 The sanctions hearing proceeded and, on 17 June 2026, the Tribunal made orders:10 • reprimanding the applicant; • disqualifying the applicant from applying for registration as a health practitioner; • imposing a period of four years during which the applicant cannot apply for a reinstatement order; and • prohibiting the applicant from providing any health services until he is again registered as a health professional. 16 The Tribunal’s reasons for these sanctions are yet to be published. The applicant’s grounds of appeal and application 17 The applicant’s notice of appeal contains the following five grounds: 1. Failure to Engage with the Case Put (Constructive Failure of Jurisdiction): The primary judge erred in law by failing to engage with the Applicant’s substantive argument. The judge erroneously concluded that the FOI transcript had been dealt with by Justice Stanley, ignoring the Applicant’s clear submissions that the transcript was previously tendered regarding an inconsistent statement about the patient name, whereas it is now relied upon to establish a fundamentally distinct, unadjudicated claim of actual fraud and evidentiary spoliation. 2. Misapplication of Finality: The primary judge erred in law by concluding the claim was a “relitigation”, wrongly equating a prior interlocutory application to adduce fresh evidence in an appeal with an independent originating application to set aside a judgment procured by fraud. The judge failed to recognize that the cause of action (fraud upon the tribunal) was never before Justice Stanley. 3. Failure to Give Adequate Reasons: The primary judge erred in law by failing to provide any, or any adequate, reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s submissions distinguishing the current fraud claim from the arguments made before Justice Stanley and the Court of Appeal, and by dismissing the 19 May 2026 solicitor letter without explaining why it did not support the application. 4. Failure to Consider Material Evidence: The primary judge erred in fact and law by disregarding the 19 May 2026 solicitor letter evidence confirming the permanent destruction of the original historical data which did not 9 Statement of Reasons, Medical Board of Australia v Jamil (2022/SHP000017, Senior Member Stevens and Members McEntee and Dolling, 17 June 2026, Unpublished). 10 Pursuant to ss 196(2) and 196(4) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 (SA). -- 5 of 8 -- [2026] SASCA 75 Livesey P 4 exist at the time of Justice Stanley's decision and therefore could not have been considered previously. 5. Denial of Procedural Fairness: By summarily dismissing the application on the false premise that the arguments had already been adjudicated, and by ignoring the Applicant’s repeated submissions correcting this factual error, the primary judge denied the Applicant a fair hearing. 18 As previously explained by Bleby JA when refusing a stay,11 the applicant now raises a case of fraud. He relies on the transcript of an interview with one of the complainants and an investigator, and a recent letter from her solicitors stating that she no longer has access to any of her original Facebook Messenger communications with the applicant. Today, the applicant’s case has been expressed in broader terms and, indeed, broader than his written submissions suggest. The applicant contends that the effect of the evidence to which he has referred is that it proves perjury by the complainant and fraud on the Tribunal, given the inference that she intentionally deleted her Facebook messages. 19 The application seeks the expedited listing and consideration of his appeal. 20 In his supporting affidavit, the applicant says that expedition is “urgently necessary” because the Tribunal’s initial finding of professional misconduct is “pending the determination and publication of sanctions”.12 He says that allowing the decision and sanctions imposed by the Tribunal to stand, made in reliance on the complainant’s false evidence, denies him procedural fairness. Therefore, expedition is required to prevent severe prejudice to his professional standing, so that the matter may be remitted for re-determination. Seeking expedition 21 The principles concerning whether to grant expedition in the hearing of an appeal are similar to those which apply when considering whether to expedite the conduct of litigation more generally.13 22 Whilst this Court has a broad discretion, and a range of considerations will be relevant, it is necessary to recognise that an order for an expedited appeal hearing is not granted as a matter of course. The Court of Appeal has limited resources and a long list. A number of appeals are now being listed in early 2027. 23 Whilst earlier listings may on occasion be possible, it is necessary to reserve those places for cases where the need for expedition has been demonstrated. It is not possible to be definitive about what will constitute a proper case for expedition, for each application will depend on its particular circumstances. The relevant 11 Ruling of Bleby JA delivered on 3 June 2026 (FDN 9). 12 Affidavit of Shamyal Haroon Jamil affirmed 17 June 2026 (FDN 15). 13 See, for example, Greetings Oxford Koala Hotel Pty Ltd v Oxford Square Investments Pty Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 33, 42-43 (Young J), applied in Marshall Rural Pty Ltd v Basscave Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 86, [12] (Pain J); Re Securities and Exchange Commission [2020] NSWSC 1212, [16]-[17] (Wright J). -- 6 of 8 -- [2026] SASCA 75 Livesey P 5 considerations may include cases where the applicant is in custody,14 where the case comes within the Court of Appeal’s priority programme,15 or where the subject matter of the appeal may be at risk absent an urgent hearing.16 24 In short, the applicant seeking an expedited appeal hearing must demonstrate a proper case for expedition so as to warrant departure from the ordinary course of listings. The determination of the application 25 The arguments now advanced by the applicant in support of expedition substantially, but not entirely, repeat those he made before Bleby JA in support of his application for a stay of the sanctions hearing. 26 The applicant contends that expedition is necessary to prevent the Tribunal’s findings and orders from taking effect. However, this contention misunderstands what has happened. The Tribunal’s finding of professional misconduct and the sanctions which have been imposed are not “pending” anything. Final orders have been made. The initial professional misconduct finding was made two-and-a-half years ago, in December 2023. In addition, the applicant has exhausted all avenues of appeal concerning that finding. That finding is not affected by the imposition of sanctions just over a week ago. 27 Today, the applicant’s arguments may have gone further than his written submissions. However, and as Bleby JA explained when refusing to stay the sanctions hearing, the applicant has long had access to materials such as the transcript of the interview with one of the complainants. He failed in his application to put that transcript before the Court of Appeal as fresh evidence. In circumstances where the applicant always intended to use the transcript to impeach the credit of one of the complainants, it does not really assist that he now says that he did not appreciate at the time of the hearing before Stanley JA that he could have argued a case of perjury or fraud. Similarly, in so far as the applicant contends that he can now show fraud associated with the deletion of messaging or other material, it is difficult to see how that undermines the nuanced approach taken to credibility by the Tribunal which was reviewed by this Court. For today’s purposes, however, it is not necessary to address all of the arguments made about fraud.17 14 For example, in O’Connor v The King [2026] SASCA 43, [38] (Livesey P), an earlier hearing date became available by the time of the unsuccessful application for bail pending appeal. 15 The Court of Appeal has implemented a programme for the expedition of appeals concerning matters involving sexual offences against a child or a person with a disability, complementary to the District Court Criminal Priority Programme, where the Court of Appeal will endeavour to list appeals within three to four months of the first callover, subject to court availability and resources. See District Court of South Australia, Priority Matters – Information for the Profession (14 November 2023). 16 See, for example, Hyde v Hyde & Ors [2026] SASCA 13, [32]-[34] (Livesey P, Bleby and B Doyle JJA); Hyde v Hyde & Ors [2026] SASCA 11 (Livesey P). 17 See cases such as Flowers v Finlayson (No 2) [2023] SASCA 12; Croser v Croser [2025] SASCA 145, [22]-[23] (Livesey P), where the jurisdiction to set aside on the ground of fraud was reviewed. -- 7 of 8 -- [2026] SASCA 75 Livesey P 6 28 As Bleby JA explained, it does not appear that the applicant’s grounds for setting aside the order for dismissal of the judicial review proceedings are strong. However, more importantly, even if one assumes in the applicant’s favour that there are reasonably arguable grounds, they do not support a case for urgency or expedition in the hearing of the appeal against the dismissal of judicial review proceedings. 29 To the extent that the applicant relies on additional reputational damage arising from publication of the Tribunal’s reasons on sanctions, it is difficult to see how that additional prejudice would justify expediting the appeal, given the likely impact of the Tribunal’s findings on professional misconduct which have already been published. Whilst the orders prevent the applicant from providing any health services, he has not sought a stay of those orders and, in any event, there is no basis disclosed to stay the operation of those orders given that the applicant has not been registered since January 2022. 30 Finally, the applicant referred to the ongoing mental health impacts of these proceedings and his inability to practice medicine. Accepting the applicant’s contentions at their highest, they do not suggest a proper case for expedition in the hearing of the appeal. Conclusion 31 The application for expedition is refused. The appeal is listed for hearing before the Court of Appeal on 11 December 2026. 32 I will also dismiss the application made yesterday. The applicant must pay the Board’s costs of both applications. -- 8 of 8 --