Azam v Medical Board of Australia [2013] QCAT 588

CITATION: Azam v Medical Board of Australia [2013] QCAT 588 PARTIES: Dr Muhammad Azam v Medical Board of Australia APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR191-13 MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Judge Alexander Horneman-Wren SC, Deputy President DELIVERED ON: 26 July 2013 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT: 1. The application for an interim order is refused. THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTS THAT 1. The matter is listed for a directions hearing at 10:30 am on 1 August 2013 CATCHWORDS: HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS – LICENCES AND REGISTRATION – where the Board took immediate action under s 156 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) and imposed conditions on the registrant’s registration – where the registrant sought a stay of the Board’s decision – whether a stay of the Board’s decision should be granted Health Practitioners (Disciplinary Proceedings) Act 1999 (Qld), s 398C(1)(b), s 398B, s 398ZC Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), s 199 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 58 Chaudhry v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency [2013] QCAT, 9 May 2013, -- 1 of 2 -- 2 cited 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). REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On 25 October 2012 the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency notified Dr Azam’s solicitors that the Medical Board of Australia had decided to take immediate action under s 156 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (National Law). The immediate action taken was to impose conditions on Dr Azam’s registration. [2] On 19 July 2013 Dr Azam’s solicitors filed an application to review decision of the Board and an application for interim order. [3] The application for interim order seeks an order to remove the conditions on Dr Azam’s registration. An interim order is an order that only has effect for the duration of the proceeding or a shorter period.1 Although it is not stated in those terms, what is sought is a stay of the Board’s decision. [4] The decision to impose conditions on a health practitioner’s registration is an appellable decision.2 The decision is thus a reviewable decision under s 398B of the Health Practitioners (Disciplinary Proceedings) Act 1999 (Disciplinary Proceedings Act). The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decision.3 [5] The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant a stay of a decision to take immediate action.4 A decision to take immediate action is made under Part 8, Division 7 of the National Law. Section 398ZC of the Disciplinary Proceedings Act prohibits the granting of a stay. [6] The stay is refused. [7] Section 398ZC requires the Tribunal to finalise the review as quickly as possible. To facilitate this Dr Azam’s application to review a decision is listed for a directions hearing at 10:30 am on 1 August 2013. 1 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 58(6). 2 National Law s 199(1)(i). 3 Disciplinary Proceedings Act s 398C(1)(b). 4 Chaudhry v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency [2013] QCAT, 9 May 2013. -- 2 of 2 --