Bontchev v Medical Board of Queensland [2010] QCAT 61
CITATION: Bontchev v Medical Board of Queensland
[2010] QCAT 61
PARTIES: Dr Sevdalin Stoyanov Bontchev
(Applicant)
v
Medical Board of Queensland
(Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR048-09
MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters
HEARING DATE: On the papers
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: Deputy President
DELIVERED ON: 17 March 2010
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE: Both parties have leave to be legally
represented
CATCHWORDS : LEGAL REPRESENTATION - complex
question of law; implications for other
applications, similarities to disciplinary
proceedings.
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Act 2009, s43(1),(3)
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): Heard on the papers
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] Dr Bontchev has practised in Bundaberg as a special purpose registrant
since he arrived in Australia in 2000. On 19 November 2009 the
registration advisory committee of the Medical Board of Queensland
made a decision to renew his special purpose registration, subject to a
two special conditions. The first restricts him to practise when another
registrant is located on site within the practice. The second requires him
to undertake a Structured Clinical Interview. By agreement, that latter
-- 1 of 3 --
2
condition has been stayed pending the outcome of Dr Bontchev’s
application to review the decision.
[2] Both Dr Bontchev and the Medical Board wish to be legally represented in
these proceedings. It is common ground the board’s decision is not
disciplinary and the parties do not have a right to representation without
leave. 1
[3] The question of legal representation in a proceeding before QCAT is
governed by s 43 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act
2009. The main purpose of that section is to have the parties represent
themselves unless the interests of justice require otherwise (s43 (1)). It
specifies a number of circumstances the tribunal may consider as
supporting leave being given. Relevantly, for this application, are:
“(b) the proceeding is likely to involve complex questions of fact or law;
(d) all of the parties have agreed to the party being represented in the
proceeding.” (s43(3))
Neither party opposes the other’s application for leave, and both assert the
proceeding will involve complex questions of fact and law.
[4] Dr Bontchev asserts the Board’s decision to impose the contested
conditions is ultra vires and an abuse of its power. This raises questions
about the scope of the Board’s authority and the limits of its power which
are best addressed by the parties with the assistance of legal
representation.
[5] The outcome of the proceedings may well have implications beyond Dr
Bontchev’s application. At the heart of the dispute is whether the Medical
Board has correctly interpreted the requirements for registration.
[6] Specifically, Dr Bontchev’s case is that it was not necessary for him to
have passed two examinations conducted by the Royal Australasian
College of General Practitioners: the Applied Knowledge Test and the
Objective Structured Clinical Examination. In effect, his application for
review calls into question what experience or qualification is sufficient for
unconditional registration. Whilst this is not necessarily a complex
question, the implications for other applications for registration tend in
favour of leave being granted.
[7] Further, whilst the proceeding is not disciplinary in nature, it shares some
similarities. From Dr Bontchev’s perspective, the outcome will determine
the conditions under which he may practise. From the Board’s
perspective, it involves its statutory functions to protect the public; to
uphold professional standards of practise and to maintain public
confidence.
1 S 43 (2)(b)(ii) provides a party may be represented by someone else if the proceeding relates to a
disciplinary action or reviewing a decision about taking disciplinary action against a person.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
[8] Taking each of those matters into account, it is in the interests of justice
for each party to have leave to be legally represented.
-- 3 of 3 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QCAT/2010/061