Braun v Rushbrook & Anor (No 2) [2020] QSC 270

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Braun v Rushbrook & Anor (No 2) [2020] QSC 270 PARTIES: DOCTOR WILLIAM BRAUN (applicant) v DOCTOR ELIZABETH RUSHBROOK (first respondent) METRO NORTH HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SERVICE (second respondent) FILE NO/S: BS No 10610 of 2019 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Originating Application ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court of Queensland DELIVERED ON: 4 September 2020 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATES: 8 June 2020 and 21 August 2020; reasons delivered 2 September 2020 JUDGE: Williams J ORDER: 1. Each of, the decision made by the First Respondent on 27 February 2019 to suspend the Applicant from duty in his employment, the subsequent decisions affirming the first decision after review thereof on 26 March 2019, 31 May 2019 and 27 August 2019, and the purported decision to suspend the Applicant from duty in his employment on 12 August 2020 are declared to be of no force or effect. 2. The Respondents are to pay the Applicant's costs of and incidental to the proceeding on the standard basis or as agreed. 3. CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – GENERALLY – OTHER MATTERS COUNSEL: AD Scott for the applicant J Horton QC and S Amos for the first and second respondents -- 1 of 2 -- 2 SOLICITORS: K&L Gates for the applicant Crown Law for the first and second respondents [1] On 2 September 2020, I published my reasons in respect of the Further Amended Application for a Statutory Order of Review and Review and ordered that the parties confer and provide an agreed form of orders to my Associate by 4 pm on 3 September 2020 reflecting the position set out in my reasons. If an agreed position could not be reached, then each party was to provide proposed orders identifying the differences together with an explanation for the differences. [2] The parties were able to agree on the form of orders and provided proposed orders to my Associate in accordance with the directions. [3] I have considered the proposed orders and am satisfied the terms of the proposed orders reflect the reasons delivered on 2 September 2020 and are otherwise appropriate. Further, the costs order proposed is appropriate as the applicant has been successful on the natural justice ground of the application and costs should follow the event. [4] Accordingly, I order as follows: 1. Each of, the decision made by the First Respondent on 27 February 2019 to suspend the Applicant from duty in his employment, the subsequent decisions affirming the first decision after review thereof on 26 March 2019, 31 May 2019 and 27 August 2019, and the purported decision to suspend the Applicant from duty in his employment on 12 August 2020 are declared to be of no force or effect. 2. The Respondents are to pay the Applicant's costs of and incidental to the proceeding on the standard basis or as agreed. -- 2 of 2 --