Darby v Medical Board of Australia [2014] QCAT 545

CITATION: Darby v Medical Board of Australia [2014] QCAT 545 PARTIES: Dr Carolynne Darby (Applicant) v Medical Board of Australia (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR293-12 MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Judge Alexander Horneman-Wren SC, Deputy President DELIVERED ON: 31 October 2014 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: 1. Dr Darby is to pay the costs of the Medical Board of Australia of and incidental to the proceedings as assessed on the standard basis on the District Court scale. CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – COSTS – JURISDICTION – OTHER CASES – where the applicant brought an application to review the decision of the respondent – where the applicant withdrew her application – where the applicant did not file any substantive material – whether the applicant should pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), s 199, s 201 APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act). -- 1 of 3 -- 2 REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On 7 September 2012 Dr Carolynne Darby filed in the Tribunal an application to review the decision of the Medical Board of Australia of 10 July 2012, to refuse her application for renewal of limited registration. [2] Dr Darby was notified of the decision in a letter from the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) dated 31 July 2012. In that letter the reasons for decision were identified as issues of competency which arose from a work performance report and an independent competency assessment, and Dr Darby’s failure to comply with the Board’s progress requirement, she being unable to progress via the specialist pathway with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. [3] Dr Darby sought a stay of the Board’s decision. The Tribunal directed each party to file submissions in regards to the stay application. On 28 September 2012 the application was considered on the papers and an order refusing the stay was made. [4] At a directions hearing in October 2012 the Tribunal made directions that the Board file a record book which included a statement of reasons for the decision and the documents relied upon. The matter was listed for a compulsory conference. On 26 October 2012 the Board filed a record book but indicated it was still seeking further documents which would be supplied in a supplementary record book. A supplementary record book was filed in the Tribunal in November 2012. [5] Following the compulsory conference directions were made by the Tribunal that Dr Darby file material in support of her application. No material was filed in accordance with that direction. At a directions hearing in July 2013 directions were again made by the Tribunal that Dr Darby file material in support of her application. The Tribunal further ordered that if that direction was not complied with the substantive application would be dismissed and the Board would have liberty to apply in respect of costs. [6] On 15 August 2013 Dr Darby filed in the Tribunal an application for miscellaneous matters seeking to withdraw her application for review of the Board’s decision. On 19 August 2013 the Tribunal granted leave to Dr Darby to withdraw her application. [7] The Board seeks an order that Dr Darby pay its costs of and incidental to the proceeding. [8] The application for review was made pursuant to s 199 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland). Section 201 of that act provides that the Tribunal may make any order about costs it considers appropriate for the proceeding. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 [9] The Board submits that an order for cost is appropriate as;  There was limited or no utility in the proceeding as Dr Darby sought a review of the independence of assessors on which the Board relied and discriminatory issues in the workplace which is beyond the Tribunal’s powers in it’s review jurisdiction;  The Board acted reasonably throughout the proceedings and the delay in the provision of a complete record book did not prejudice or lengthen the proceeding;  The Board is wholly funded by fees levied from registrants; and  The Board acted reasonably in exercising its statutory functions to protect the public and uphold the standards of the profession by offering Dr Darby registration for a more junior position and opposing the stay in the interest of public safety due to issues of competency. [10] Dr Darby has not filed any submission on costs. [11] It is appropriate that the Board has its costs. It has been required to respond to proceedings which were ultimately withdrawn, and in which Dr Darby did not file any substantive material. Dr Darby will be ordered to pay the Board’s costs as assessed on the standard basis on the District Court scale. -- 3 of 3 --