Maman v Health Care Complaints Commission [2026] NSWCATOD 114

Catchwords: OCCUPATIONS – health practitioner – nurse – application for reinstatement Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Maman v Health Care Complaints Commission [2026] NSWCATOD 114 Hearing dates: 23 June 2026; submissions closed 29 July 2026 Date of orders: 28 August 2026 Decision date: 28 August 2026 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: L Pearson, Principal Member S Daly, Senior Member T Azzopardi, Senior Member R Kusuma, General Member Decision: (1) Pursuant to s 163B(1)(c) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) 2009 the Tribunal makes a reinstatement order. (2) Pursuant to s 163B(1)(e)(i) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) 2009 the Tribunal revokes the prohibition order made on 15 October 2024. (3) Within 14 days from the date of publication of this decision the parties are to provide to the Tribunal agreed terms of a condition to be imposed on the applicant’s registration under s 163B(4) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) 2009 in terms specified in [58]-[62] of these reasons, following which a further order will be made. (4) The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs pursuant to cl 13 of Sch 5D to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) 2009, as agreed or assessed. Catchwords: OCCUPATIONS – health practitioner – nurse – application for reinstatement Legislation Cited: Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW) Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) 2009 Cases Cited: Health Care Complaints Commission v Maman [2024] NSWCATOD 165 Jan v Health Care Complaints Commission [2021] NSWSC 350 Qasim v Medical Council of New South Wales [2021] NSWCA 173 Ristevski v Medical Council of New South Wales [2016] NSWCATOD 18 Texts Cited: Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia, Registered Nurse Standards for Practice (1 June 2016) Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia, Registration Standard: Recency of Practice (1 June 2016) Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia, Code of conduct for nurses (1 March 2018) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Abhigith Maman (Applicant) Health Care Complaints Commission (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: NSW Nurses and Midwives’ Association (Applicant) Health Care Complaints Commission (Respondent) File Number(s): 2026/00079964 Publication restriction: On 23 June 2026 the Tribunal made an order pursuant to cl 7 of Sch 5D to the National Law, that the name of Patient A is not to be published. REASONS FOR DECISION The Application Mr Ab higith Maman ’ s registration as a nurse was cancelled pursuant to orders made by the Tribunal (differently constituted) on 15 October 2024 : Health Care Complaints Commission v Maman [2024] NS W CATOD 165 (Decision). The Tribunal ordered that he could not apply for review of the cancellation order for a period of 12 months , and that he was prohibited from providing ‘ health services ’ as defined in s 4 of the Health Care Complaints Ac t 1993 (NSW) for 12 months from the date of the orders. Mr Maman has applied for a review and seeks a reinstatement order pursuant to Div 8 of Pt 8 to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NS W ) (National Law) and revocation of the prohibition order , on the ground that the term of the non-review period has expired and he is now entitled to seek review. The Health Care Complaint s Commission (HCCC) is entitled to appea r in the inquiry conducted by the Tribunal: National Law, s 163 C( 4). The position of the respondent as indicated in the Reply to the application was that at that stage it neither opposed nor consented to the application, and reserved its position as to costs. In closing submission s the HCCC position is that it maintains its neutral position on whether cancellation remains appropriate at the time of the review, submits that if the applicant is reinstated conditions should be imposed, and that it seeks an order for costs. Background The following summary is based on the findings made in the Decision and otherwis e not in dispute. The applicant was first registered as a nurse in Australia on 7 February 2017, having completed a Bachelor of Science in Nursing in India in 2014. From June 2017 to October 2018 h e worked full time as a registered nurse in aged care in Tumut , and he commenced working fulltime at W agga W agga Base Hospital Mental Health Unit ( WBMH U ) in December 2018. O n 29 May 2021 the applicant was working on the morning shift at the WBMHU . Patient A had been admitted due to suicidal ideation , alcohol misuse and depression , as a voluntary patient . Patient A had previously been admitted in March 2021. The applicant was allocated to Patient A ’ s nursing care during his shift , which included administering medication , conducting a mental health assessment and recording progress notes. The following day the applicant worked the afternoon shift and was again responsible for Patient A ’ s care , making progress notes and conducting a mental health assessment, and completing an alcohol withdrawal assessment . Patie nt A was discharged from hospital during the a fternoon of 31 May 2021 while the applicant was working on t he afternoon shift, with a plan including drug and alcohol services, community mental health team, psychology referral and GP support and prescribed discharge medication . W hile in hospital Patient A and the applicant had talked about her cleaning business and discussed cleaning for his apartment . The applicant did not ask his boss or any of his colleagues if it would be alright for a patient to clean his home. About a week after discharge the applicant called or messaged Patient A and asked her to clean his unit ; they exchanged messages and after a few conversations became friends. In June 2021 a month after dis charge the applicant visited Patient A ’ s house and they started dating. On 5 July 2021 the applicant visited Patient A at her house and had 1-2 alcoholic drinks with her and a sexual relationship developed. The relationship with Patient A ended in December 2021 , recommenced in June or July 2022 , and ended in September 2022. The applicant had continued working shifts at WBMHU and did not disclose the relationship with Patient A to any of his colleagues. The applicant had completed trainin g about the NS W Health Code of Conduct in March 2019; and while the relationship was ongoing completed CPD training in Open Disclosure (June 2021), staff self-care and wellbeing ( July 2021), clinical care of people who may be suicidal ( August 2022), and suicide prevention (September 2022). He continued to undertake CPD training as discussed below. W hen the relationship came to an end for the second time Patient A made a comp l aint to the Local Health District (LHD) , and in October 2022 she contacted the police. The applicant was notified of the complaint , and advised by the police that he should not contact Patient A. He contacted her by text message, and attended her premises apologising and asking for forgiveness. In October 2022 t he applicant resigned from his employment . O n 17 October 2022 the Nursing and Midwifery Council of New South Wales at a s 150 hearing imposed a condition o n the applicant ’ s registration that he was not to work as a registered nurse until reviewed by the Council . The applicant participated in a n interview at the HCCC on 10 May 2023 . In the Application for Disciplinary Findings the HCCC made two complaints, Complaint 1 that the applicant was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct under s 139B(1)(l) of the National Law in that he had engaged in improper or unethical conduct relating to the practice or purported practice of nursing, and Complaint 2 that he was guilty of professional misconduct under s 139E of the National Law. Tribunal decision of 15 October 2024 The particulars of Complaint 1 brought against the applicant were as follows: “ 1. In or about June 2021 until December 2021, the practitioner engaged in an inappropriate intimate relationship with Patient A in circumstances where: a. The practitioner had provided care and treatment to Patient A during her admission to WBMHU. b. Patient A was vulnerable. 2. In or about July 2022 until September 2022, the practitioner resumed his inappropriate intimate relationship with Patient A in circumstances where: a. The practitioner had provided care and treatment to Patient A during her admission to WBMHU b. Patient A was vulnerable. 3. The practitioner acted contrary to: a. Part 4.1 (d) of the Nurses and Midwives Board of Australia ( NMBA) Code of Conduct for Nurses (March 2018 version); b. Standard 2 of the NMBA, Registered Nurse Standards of Practice (June 2016 version).” The applicant admitted in writing Complaint 1 and each of particulars 1-3. The Tribunal found each prove n (Decision at [62]) : “62 …. In any event, we are comfortably satisfied on the materials before us that Mr Maman’s conduct was improper as not in accordance with the behaviour expected of an RN but also that his failure to maintain professional boundaries and to engage in a sexual personal relationship with a former patient was improper and unethical including as contrary to the Code of Conduct.” The Tribunal found ( Decision at [64]-[65]) that the applicant had breached the trust of Patient A who was particularly vulnerable due to the various conditions she suffered which should have been apparent to him given he had cared for her when she was a patient at WBMHU . Further , at the time of discharge the applicant knew or should have known that if Patient A ’ s mental health deteriorated in the future she would present to emergency to be admitted to WBMHU again and as he continued to work there it was highly likely he would have been her nurse again. WBMHU was in a small regional area with little or no other option for admission elsewhere for treatment which placed Patient A at a particular disad vantage or vulnerability with respect to the applicant. The applicant admitted Complaint 2 , which was that the conduct in Complaint 1 was conduct that when the particulars were considered alone o r together was of a sufficiently ser i ous nature to justify cancellation. In finding Complaint 2 of professional misconduct proven , t he Tribunal a greed with the HCCC submissions that : T he applicant had been working as a full-time registered nurse since June 2017 and had been working full - time at the WBMHU since December 2018 and so he must have known the importance of professional boundaries; N urses must actively manage patient expectations, recognise the inherent power imbalance between nurses and people in their care, avoid sexual relationships with persons with whom they have previously had a professional relationship , recognise when over-involvement has occurred and disclose any concern to an appropriate person, and seek advice from their employer or others if unsure of their obligations ; and T he applicant had continued his inappropriate intimate relatio n ship with Patient A during two periods notwithstanding that he continued to be employed by the LHD to work at the WBMHU over that time , that Patient A was participating in community mental health consultations and alcohol counselling provided by the LHD over that time , and tha t if her condition deteriorated she would likely require another admission to the WBMHU where the applicant worked. In determining that the appropriate protective order was to cancel the applicant ’ s registration, impose a 12 month non-review period, and make a prohibition order, the Tribunal explained (Decision at [9 0 ] -[95]) : “90 Maintenance of professional boundaries is an essential element in nursing, particularly mental health nursing, and Mr Maman’s conduct demonstrates that he did not have an understanding of this, despite extensive training on the Code of Conduct and professional and ethical behaviour. To the contrary, Mr Maman’s conduct demonstrated a blatant disregard for those professional boundaries and a lack of understanding or concern as to the particular vulnerability of Patient A. 91 W hile Mr Maman said he had learned a lot and certainly appears to now demonstrate some limited insight into the consequences of his conduct (as compared with when he first attended the s 150 hearing), we remain concerned about the extent of his insight. Of particular concern to us was his denial in cross-examination that certain text messages between him and Patient A related to orgasms in a sexual context. In context, he was attempting to maintain that at the time he entered into a relationship with Patient A, he did not understand boundaries – despite the education and training he had undertaken. W hen questioned by us about those text messages he said that they were not sexually explicit messages but rather messages about an alcoholic drink called an Orgasm. W hen the messages are read as a conversation (part of which is set out at [42] above), it is clear that he and Patient A were discussing orgasm in a sexual context and we do not accept his explanation. Mr Maman’s denial shows that he continues to attempt to minimise his conduct and we are not satisfied that he has demonstrated sufficient insight to deal with the risk factors that otherwise remain to the public if he continues to practice as a RN at this point in time . Having regard to the paramount consideration under the National Law, the protection of the public, we consider that at this time, if he were to be involved in the provision of health services as an RN he would pose a substantial risk to the health of the public. We have particular concern about Mr Maman providing services to mental health patients who are extremely vulnerable. Consequently, we consider it appropriate to order that Mr Maman’s registration as an RN be cancelled. 92 Our concerns about Mr Maman being a substantial risk to the public extend to the provision of ‘health services’ (as defined in s 4 of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NS W ) such as aged care or disability support services. We have decided that during the period of his cancellation he also be prohibited from providing any health services. 93 While we find that at the present time Mr Maman poses a substantial risk to the public, we do not agree with the Commission that a period of two years before he can seek re-registration is appropriate in this case. 94 Mr Maman has taken steps to rehabilitate and take responsibility. He has commenced counselling and we accept the evidence of his psychologist that he is now starting to understand the gravity of what he has done. However, we also note that at the time of the hearing, he had only had four consultations and had providing the psychologist with limited information for her to know whether he would engage in this conduct again. Further, although Mr Maman asserts that he will undertake further study at the Australian Catholic University, the evidence was that he had made enquiries and that enrolment could not occur until the second half of this year. In any event, he has done copious amounts of further education and training already and has learned the principles underpinning the Code of Conduct and relevant Standards: it is now a matter of whether he understands them and can put them into practice. This is a matter we are unable to be satisfied of on the evidence. We accept he is ashamed and remorseful for his conduct but we were unable to be satisfied on the evidence that his shame and remorse is a result of genuinely understanding why it was wrong to engage in a sexual relationship with Patient A and the impact this has had on her, compared to being severely ashamed because he had been publicly exposed. 95 Overall, a period of 12 months before Mr Maman can seek re-registration is “both appropriate and adequate for both specific and general deterrence”. This will enable him to continue to work with the counsellor and also other remedial steps such as undertaking further education as he has indicated he wishes to do. Noting the period of time that has already passed that he has been suspended from practice as an RN, the steps he has already taken, including further education and counselling, we consider a cancellation period of 12 months will give Mr Maman an appropriate amount of time to continue to get the help he needs and gain insight into the effect of his conduct. ” Legislation A person may apply to the Tribunal for review of a relevant order made in relation to the person which includes an order that the person ’ s registration be cancelled: National Law, s 163A. The “ appropriate review body ” to review the order is the Tribunal: National Law, s 163(1)(c). The powers of the Tribunal on review are stated in s 163B of the National Law: 163B Powers on review [NSW] (1) The appropriate review body must conduct an inquiry into an application for review and may then do any of the following— (a) dismiss the application; (b) make an order ending or shortening the period of the suspension concerned; (c) make a reinstatement order; (d) make an order altering or removing the conditions to which the person’s registration is subject, including by imposing new conditions; (e) make an order— (i) ending or shortening the period of a prohibition order; or (ii) altering or removing the conditions to which the person is subject under a prohibition order, including by imposing new conditions. … (3) (Repealed) (3A) Any condition imposed on a person’s registration by the National Board under Part 7 applies but only to the extent that it is not inconsistent with conditions imposed or altered by the appropriate review body under subsection (4). (4) The appropriate review body may also impose conditions on the person’s registration or alter the conditions to which the person’s registration is to be subject under the reinstatement order. (5) The order on a review under this section may also provide that the order is not to be reviewed under this Division until after a specified time. The task of the Tribunal in conducting an inquiry into an application for review is to determine the appropriateness, at the time of the review, of the order concerned: National Law, s 163 C( 1). In conducting the review, the Tribunal is not to review the decision to make the order, or any findings made in connection with the making of that decision: National Law, s 163 C( 2). The applicable principles in determining the appropriateness of making a reinstatement order were discussed by the NS W Court of Appeal in Qa sim v Medical Council of New South W ales [2021] NS W CA 173 at [17]-[19] : “17 In conformity with s 163C( 1), the task of the review tribunal on a reinstatement application is therefore to determine the appropriateness of an order reinstating the applicant, as at the date of hearing the application. In performing that task, the Tribunal must have regard to the objectives and guiding principles of the National Law, which relevantly include the protection of the public by ensuring that only those practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practise in a competent and ethical manner are registered, the paramount consideration being the protection of the health and safety of the public. 18 The position of an applicant for reinstatement is disadvantaged by reason that presumptions of fitness, which might otherwise arise from an absence of contrary suggestion, do not operate for the benefit of an applicant who has been deregistered on the basis of unfitness. An applicant for reinstatement bears the onus of demonstrating that he or she can be trusted to practise in a way that conforms to the professional standards expected of a health practitioner and presents no risk to the safety of the public and their confidence in the profession. 19 Thus the essential task of an applicant for reinstatement is to show that he or she is no longer unfit…” (footnotes omitted) In conducting this review the Tribunal must bear in mind the objective and guiding principle of the National Law as set out in s 3B, which is that the “ protection of the health and safety of the public must be the paramount consideration . ” The Tribunal has also had regard to the objectives of the n ational registration and accreditation scheme of the National Law, which relevantly include the protection of the public by ensuring that only those practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practise in a competent and ethical manner are registered: National Law, s 3(2)(a). Issues The issues requiring resolution in this proceeding are as follows: W hether cancellation of the applicant ’ s registration remains appropriate at the time of this review; If the Tribunal determines that an order reinstating the applicant is appropriate, whether his registration should be subject to any conditions; and W hether an order for costs should be made. The starting point is the Tribunal ’ s “ evaluation of the applicant himself, in l ight of his history of transgression after having been deregistered ” : Jan v Health Care Complaints Commission [2021] NS W SC 350 at [33] per Leeming JA. The applicant bears the onus of demonstrating that he can be trusted to practise in a way that conforms to the professional standards expected of a registered nurse and which presents no risk to the safety of the public or to the confidence of the public in that profession. The Applicant’s evidence The applicant provided a Reflection dated 20 January 2026 in which he stated that he now underst ands that he entered into an inappropriate personal relationship with a former patient soon after her discharge f ro m the mental health facility where he had been her nurse. At the time he did not fully understand that the professional relationship does not end at discharge and that a power imbalance can continue especially for someone who is vulnerable. He now recognises that this is a serious breach of the N ursing and M idwifery B oard of A ustralia (NMBA) Code of Conduct and a failure to meet Standard 2.1 of the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia ’ s R egistered N urse (RN) Standards for Practice (June 2016) , at 4, which requires nurses to cle arly separate professional and personal relationships. The applicant stated that looking back he feels deep regret, shame and sadness for the harm he caused. Starting therapy with his psychologist Elise Guymer helped him to understand his behaviour more honestly. Completing the Healthcare Ethics course at Australian Catholic University ( ACU ) also opened his eyes to ethical principles that he previously did not fully appreciate. Looking back he feels a clearer sense of responsibility and maturity, understands the seriousness of his actions and accepts the Tribunal ’ s findings completely. From therapy he has learned how his emotional needs and stress contributed to over-involvement, that good intentions do not excuse unprofessional behaviour, that power imbalance can continue long after discharge, and that maintaining professional boundaries protects both the patient and the nurse. From the Healthcare Ethics course at ACU he has learned how ethical principles apply in real practice, including that his past behaviour interfered with the patient ’ s true autonomy because of the power imbalance, that harm is not limited to physical harm, and that vulnerability can continue even after discharge and how easily trust can be misused. The applicant stated that he now understood how his actions violated several relevant NMBA Code of Conduct and RN Standards for Practice provisions. The applicant concluded his Reflection by stating changes to how he thinks and how he will practise in future, including that he would seek advice and supervision, would be transparent with his manager, use regular self-reflection, maintain strict separation between his personal and professional life, continue seeing his psychologist and continue to engage in CPD. He is now in a healthy supportive personal relationship, and he will never let this happen again. In oral evidence the applicant stated that he accepts the Tribunal ’ s findings. The ACU course and CPD have helped him develop his reflective practice, and his therapy has helped him understand that reflective practice is an active process. Asked about what he has done to ensure this would not happen again the applicant referred to his work with the psychologist, that he is now closer to his family and in a supportive relationship, and he is no longer defensive and takes full responsibility for his actions. The applicant stated that if reinstated he would seek employment in the medical or surgical field where he has experience and where there is more clinical support. He has not looked for nursing jobs since the s 150 orders and has not worked as a nurse since. He would not go back to mental health nursing, or aged care, and he has done emergency department and medical nursing before. In cross - examination the applicant stated that he would report any over - involvement to his manager. W hile he had not talked to his boss or colleagues previously , at the time he lacked insight . L ooking back the boundary violation started when he asked for Patient A ’ s number for cleaning, and he should have reported that. He was in denial and defensive and did not reflect on his actions. Asked what he thought was the root cause of his boundary violations the applicant responded that he was living alone, isolated from his family and there was stress at work. The Tribunal can be confident it would not happen again because he now has good support and has relocated closer to friends and family. The applicant stated that he would comply with any conditions for mentoring or supervision or if subject to a condition which precluded him from managing others . If he was becoming overinvolved he would talk to his supervisor. In response to Tribunal questions the applicant stated that red flags for him would be if he was becoming overinvolved or going out of his way to help patients for example if they had business issues or if they asked for a lift home or for a favour such as buying food. Other evidence The applicant relied on evidence from Ms Elise Guymer, Clinical Psychologis t . Ms Guymer gave oral evidence and was cross - examined. In her statement dated 10 November 2025 Ms Guymer stated that the applicant had been referred to her in October 2023 and had attended on 11 occasions since then, with sessions occurring at regular intervals according to clinical need and therapeutic progress. The work had focussed on understanding the psychological and emotional factors that contributed to the boundary violation with a former patient, exploring personal vulnerabilities, stressors and relational patterns that influenced professional judgment, developing emotional regulation skills, self-awareness and professional boundary management, and strengthening coping mechanisms, ethical reasoning and accountability to support ongoing safe practice. Ms Guymer stated that the applicant had shown a high level of insight into the nature and seriousness of his past misconduct. Through therapy he has had the opportunity to develop and consider what practical strategies he could implement in the future to prevent any recurrence of boundary issues, and he had articulated a clear and appropriate plan for managing any future boundary challenges. In her opinion the applicant ha s developed a deep and sustained insight into the factor s that contributed to his past misconduct, he had demonstrated genuine remorse, emotional stability and a consistent commitment to ethical and professional conduct. Based on the insight, behavioural change and ethical maturity demonstrated it was her clinical opinion that the applicant is fit to return to nursing practice provided he continues to engage in reflective practice, professional supervision and self-care as part of his ongoing professional development. In oral evidence Ms Guymer stated that the applicant has now had 17 sessions with her, sometimes monthly and sometimes with longer gaps. There was a gap before the session on 5 March 2025, possibly because the applicant was in a low period after the Tribunal decision. He returned to monthly consultations from 3 July 2025, trying to get back on track. Ms Guymer ’ s notes for the period of 5 October 2023 to 27 August 2025 were in evidence (ex R2). In oral evidence Ms Guymer said that there have been two sessions since the sessions covered in those notes, on 24 September 2025 and 18 June 2026. There was a gap between September 2025 to June 2026 because the applicant was well, he was working, and he was overseas and was married in that time. Ms Guymer stated that monthly supervision and regular oversight by his NUM would be helpful. Monthly sessions with her would be adequate. Asked about mentoring Ms Guymer ’ s evidence was that mentoring would be a sounding board; while she did not think the applicant was a risk, it is helpful for any health care professional. Asked about the applicant ’ s failure to talk to his manager previously, Ms Guymer said that a more formal structure would be better. Asked what she thought had changed, Ms Guymer said that she has been direct with the applicant in sessions and the ACU course had been an eye opener for him. After the ACU course the person she saw was different, more self-aware than before. She was not sure how comprehensive the courses he had previously done were, and in her opinion the applicant really did not understand despite having read the documents. She has never seen his behaviour as being predatory. The Tribunal heard evidence from Ms Jill McGregor, a Registered Nurse who had been the applicant ’ s senior nurse when working together at WBMHU . In a statement dated 26 October 2025 Ms McGregor stated that she is aware of the Tribunal decision and understands that since then the applicant has taken step s to reflect and learn from the situation, completing a Health Care Ethics course at ACU and regularly seeing a psychologist. From her experience with the applicant she believes he has a genuine commitment to his patients and the nursing profession. She has no doubt he has learned valuable lessons from the experience and is ready to return to practice with gr e ater awareness and insight. She supports the application for reinstatement. In oral evidence Ms McGregor stated that she has kept in touch with the applicant since 2022 back and forth. The contact is not structured, just a chance to check in. She last worked with the applicant before she went on maternity leave. Asked if she had any concerns Ms McGregor said that if the applicant goes back to nursing he would benefit from having support, someone to consult. She would always be available. In her opinion the applicant is deeply remorseful for what happened, there were things happening in his life which would not become a problem again and he would not make the same mistake again. He knows he overstepped and that his conduct was wrong. Asked whether a professional mentor would be appropriate Ms McGregor said a mentor would be beneficial for everyone. Submissions Both parties provided written submissions canvassing the relevant legislation and principles, both before and after the hearing. Applicant’s submissions T he applicant submits that he is no longer a risk to the public and the Tribunal can be comfortably satisfied that he has demonstrated clear proof of his reformation of character and will practice in an ethical, worthy, reliable and professional manner in the future. He submits he is deeply remorseful and feels regret, shame and sadness for the harm he caused Patient A. Since October 2024 he has consistently engaged in ongoing relevant CPD to increase his knowledge and remain connected to the nursing profession. Since the boundary violation he has focused on educational topics that have assisted in a real understanding and coming to terms with what he did, so he will never do this again. In December 2025 he completed Health Care Ethics: Principles in Practice at ACU. R eferring to the evidence of Ms Guymer , in closing submissions the applicant ’ s representative submit s that her clinical records were created by audio recording of the appointments and using AI powered transcription software. There are noticeable gaps in the transcription and English is not the applicant ’ s first language. The applicant submits that the conversations in the document are an incomplete representation of what was said and the Tribunal should give the notes little weight. The applicant submit s that he has taken considerable steps to focus on specific changes in his life to ensure the unethical boundary violation will not happen again. For emotional support, he has moved closer to family and relatives, continues to see his psychologist and remained in contact with Ms McGregor . He has improved his lifestyle by sleeping better and exercising, speaking to friends and family about the boundary violation and now feels that he is not alone. The applicant submits that if the Tribunal considers assisting or monitoring the applicant ’ s progress on his return to the nursing workforce by conditions is appropriate , the AHPRA Protocol: Complete Mentoring and the AHPRA Protocol: Complete audit would sufficiently address his transition back into the workforce. There were no issues of concern identified in the workplace with respect to the applicant ’ s conduct so supervisory conditions would be onerous and would make it difficult for the applicant to secure nursing employment. The applicant submits that a condition requiring him to attend a psychologist on his return to the workforce is not required since he already engages in ongoing therapy with Ms Guymer and there is nothing to suggest that this will not continue. In Reply submissions the applicant submits that he maintains recency of practice as provided at 2 in the “ NMBA Registration Standard : Recency of Practice ” (2016) of a minimum of 450 hours of practice in the past 5 years, until 16 July 2027. As no clinical workplace issues formed part of the complaint, the applicant is, with respect to his clinical practice, no different to any other RN seeking employment within the recency of practice criteria. He has continued to maintain connection to the nursing profession by engaging in CPD. It would be harsh, onerous and overly protective to make a supervision order in these circumstances. Mentoring and audit conditions would sufficiently promote the protective purpose and the applicant ’ s transition back to the workplace. HCCC submissions The HCCC maintains its neutral position as to whether cancellation remains appropriate at the time of review, and submits that if the Tribunal is satisfied that the cancellation order is no longer appropriate the Tribunal will make a reinstatement order, and may impose conditions. The H CCC submits that the key considerations are: P rotection of the public: whether the applicant has taken sufficient steps to address the risk that he will breach professional boundaries with vulnerable patients in the future; R ehabilitation: whether the applicant has taken sufficient steps towards rehabilitation and has now demonstrated genuine insight; R eformation: whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that the practitioner has demonstrated reformation of his character so that the Tribunal can be confident that he will practice in accordance with high professional standards, comply with the Code of Conduct, and maintain public confidence in the nursing profession. The HCCC submits that if the applicant is reinstated, a supervision condition is necessary: to minimise the risk that the applicant will breach professional boundaries with vulnerable patients in the future, as before his proven conduct he already knew about his professional obligations, yet commenced an inappropriate relationship with Patient A soon after she was discharged, took alcohol to her home for them to drink despite knowing that she suffered from an alcohol use disorder, and should have known that a relationship with Patient A would or could cause significant harm to her. A supervisor could assist him to properly apply his knowledge about professional boundaries, could meet regularly with him and monitor his adherence to his professional boundaries , and could report any concerns by regularly submitting supervision reports to the Council; to assist the applicant to address the stressors he would face given he has not worked as a registered nurse since 17 October 2022 in NS W and would likely face stressors adjusting to a new workplace, intending to seek nursing work now in Victoria, and in an unfamiliar new unit given his previous work in aged care and mental health; and to ensure that any issues are raised promptly in the future. The HCCC submits that mentoring alone is insufficient to protect the public because supervision is more protective than mentoring alone. The HCCC submits that if the applicant is reinstated a psychology condition is necessary to protect the public. Although he now assures the Tribunal that he will continue seeing his psychologist the applicant has attended some sessions monthly and sometimes with longer gaps in his therapy . The HCCC relies on the evidence of Ms Guymer that psychology sessions at monthly intervals would be adequate. A formal psychology condition would protect the public by ensuring that he regularly attends without lengthy gaps and any non-attendance is reported. Consideration The Tribunal accepts the applicant ’ s evidence that he has not sought or undertaken nursing work since the s 150 orders made in October 2022 , and that h e is currently working as a printing board installer. He is now living in Victoria where he has family and friends, and support including from a church group. He intends to seek work in a medical or surgical ward where he has had experience, and where he would have more clinical support. The Tribunal has considered the evidence of Ms Guymer concerning the applicant ’ s attendance at 17 counselling sessions with her since October 2023. As explained by Ms Guymer in oral evidence, the notes for sessions to 5 March 2025 are transcribed from her written notes, and the notes of the later sessions are as recorded by an AI notetaker. Asked in oral evidence about the gaps between seg ments of text in the notes for 2023 to 2025 Ms Guymer explained that was because it was not her practice to record the entire conversation , and recording the gist was adequate. Ms Guymer was taken to specific parts of the notes for sessions on 5 October 2023, 31 October 2023 and 23 May 2024, and identified comments made by the applicant , confirmed in his oral evidence. W hile acknowledging that the notes are not a verbatim transcript of any of the counselling sessions , the Tribunal accepts that they are an accurate reflection of those sessions, consistent with and supporting the opinions expressed by Ms Guymer both in her statement and in oral evidence . In particular, the notes confirm that after the Tribunal decision in October 2024 the applicant experienced a period of low mood , and by his 3 July 2025 appointment had been engaging in regular exercise, attending counselling sessions and returned to church , engaged in study and was in a stable relationship , while still experiencing anxiety when course content triggered reflection on his past misconduct. The Tribunal accepts his evidence that his comment at the session on 5 March 2025 that “ that decision fucked my life … emotionally financially … I reflect on it I cant rid of it ” was a reference to his decision to cross professional boundaries, and not the cancellation of his registration. The Tribunal finds, based on the documentary evidence provided, that the applicant has undertaken CPD courses during 2023 to 2026, both before and since the cancellation of his registration, on topics including the NMBA Code of Conduct, RN standards and professional obligations, professional boundaries, and informed consent ( ex A1 tabs 4, 5). He completed the subject PHIL623 Health Care Ethics: Principles in Practice at ACU in Term 3, 2025 at credit level ( ex A1 , tab 6). Th e applicant was able in oral evidence to explain relevant principles concerning maintenance of professional boundaries and the standards applicable to professional practice as a nurse , and to identify the steps he would take in future if confronted by red flag situations. In response to questions the applicant was able to identify possible “ red flags ” which might indicate overinvolvement. T he Tribunal considers he now demonstrates sufficient insight to deal with the risk factors that might otherwise remain to the public if he returns to practice as an RN. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is remorsefu l, and ashamed for his previous misconduct. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Ms Guymer that through counselling sessions , which have now extended over three years, the applicant has developed insight into the nature and seriousness of his misconduct and now understands , in particular since completion of the Health Care Ethics unit , that maintaining professional boundaries is a continuous active process . W ithout minimising the seriousness of his previous misconduct , the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has developed sufficient insight and understanding of his professional obligations so as to be able to practice in a way that conforms to expected professional standards and that he is highly motivated to do so. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Ms Guymer t hat ongoing psychological therapy and other professional supports will assist the applicant in continuing the progress he has made since his registration was cancelle d . The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that as at the date of hearing of this application he can be trusted to practise in a way that conforms to the professional standards expected of a nurse, and is highly motivated to do so. Tribunal is satisfied that it is appropriate that the applicant ’ s registration be reinstated . However , as discussed below, the Tribunal is of the view that registration should be subject to a supervision condition to support his reintegration into practice . Conditions The HCCC submits that a supervision condition is necessary to minimise the risk that the applicant will breach professional boundaries with vulnerable patients in the future . The applicant submits that a supervision condition would be onerous and make it difficult to obtain employment , and that mentoring would be appropriate . W hile the Tribunal accepts that the applicant now has support from family and friends and the ongoing support of Ms McGregor as a former colleague, and that there are benefits to both mentoring and supervision , the Tribunal agrees with Ms Guymer that supervision and oversight would be helpful given the applicant ’ s past mistakes. The Tribunal accepts, as submitted by the applicant, that he has undertaken extensive CPD training and that there were no issues of clinical concern identified in relation to conduct in the workplace. However, it is now over three years since the applicant worked as a nurse, and he is now proposing to seek employment in medical or surgical nursing rather than going back to aged care or mental health nursing. The Tribunal agrees with the HCCC that a supervisor could assist the applicant with the stressors he will face in adjusting to a new workplace and area of practice and in the application of his knowledge about professional boundaries into practice and managing situations of ethical uncertainty . A supervisor with reporting obligations would be able to assist the applicant in raising and addressing issues of concern promptly. The Tri bunal considers that a supervision condition should be imposed. The HCCC submits that if the applicant is reinstated a psychology condition is necessary to minimise the risk that the applicant will breach professional boundaries with vulnerable patients in future. The applicant submits that such a condition is not necessary, as the applicant has an ongoing relationship with and already engages in ongoing therapy with Ms Guymer . Ms Guymer gave evidence of the progress made by the applicant in his continuing therapy, and that in her opinion psychology sessions at monthly intervals would be adequate . The Tribunal acknowledges that there have been periods of regular attendance recorded in Ms Guymer ’ s notes, however there have also been at times lengthy gaps . The Tribunal considers that continued attend ance at psychology sessions would be helpful in assist ing the applicant to manage the stressors he is likely to face returning to practice after a lengthy period in a new location , and ensure s that he applies appropriate psychological strategies to minimise the risk of overinvolvement and an opportunity to raise any concerns. The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant will also have the assistance and support of Ms McGregor as a sounding board . While conscious that the applicant has experienced challenges to his psychological wellbeing in the past, the Tribunal considers that on balance, having regard to the evidence as to his understanding of the factors that led to his past misconduct and strategies to avoid a recurrence, a condition requiring regular or monthly attendance with his psychologist is not warranted in the circumstances . The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to a reinstatement order, however registration should be subject to a condition requiring supervision . The Tribunal accepts the submissions of the HCCC, supported in the evidence of Ms Guymer , that supervision would support the applicant ’ s reintegration into the profession. Supervision in these circumstances is consistent with the objective and guiding principle in the exercise of the Tribunal ’ s functions under the National Law that the protection of the health and safety of the public must be the paramount consideration . Limitations on the applicant ’ s scope of practice would also support that principle . The Tribunal considers that indirect supervision as defined in the Nursing and Midwifery Council of New South Wales Regulatory Supervision Policy or Indirect 2 ( accessible) supervision under the AHPRA Supervised Practice Framework would be adequate. A supervision condition should include the following requirements: Approval of a supervisor before the applicant resumes practice; Authorisation for the supervisor to provide written reports preferably monthly; The applicant to provide a copy of the decision that led to cancellation of his registration, this decision , and a copy of any conditions on his registration to the Director of Nursing in any place in which he practises; The applicant to provide confirmation to whichever regulatory body is responsible for monitoring his practi c e and supervision arrangements that he has complied with (c) , and whenever there is any change in the nature or place of his practice . The Tribunal considers that the following limitations on the scope of practice would be appropriate : T he applicant is not to practice as a nursing unit manager or supervise or deliver training to any nurse or nursing student; The applicant is not to practice as a sole practitioner, and only practice where there is at least one other registered nurse on site ; The applicant is to bear all costs arising out of compliance with conditions. The Tribunal a grees with the HCCC that any conditions should not be time limited, but be subject to review by the appropriate review body based on the information available at the time of review. The supervision condition proposed by the HCCC in its closing submissions is framed in terms of the Nursing and Midwifery Council of New South Wales Regulatory Supervision Policy as varied from time to time , with approval of the supervisor and monitoring by the NSW Nursing and Midwifery Council. The proposed condition states that the applicant would be monitored by the Council whenever he is working in New South Wales, with provision for review in accordance with sections 125 and 127 of the National Law by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia while his principal place of practice is anywhere in Australia other than New South Wales . The Tribunal considers that a supervision condition needs to be framed so as to reflect the likelihood that the applicant will be working interstate , as he now lives in Victoria and intends to remain there , close to family and friends . The Tribunal seeks assistance from the parties in framing an appropriate condition incorporating the elements identified above that will support the applicant in his return to practise as a nurse , and that will also reflect the position that the applicant will likely be seeking registration to practise in Victoria . The orders of the Tribunal will pro vide an opportunity for the parties to provide the terms of an appropriate condition , following which a further order under s 163 B( 4) of the National Law will be made. Prohibition Order As noted above, the applicant sought an order revoking the prohibition order made on 15 October 2024 . As discussed at the hearing, the term of that order expired on 15 October 2025 . On the evidence before the Tribunal the applicant complied with the terms of t he order while it was in force. I n the context where the applicant will , once re-registered , be seeking employment in a different location and different field of practice , there may be utility in an order under s 163B(1)(e)( i ) revoking that order , and the Tribunal considers it appropriate to make such an order . Costs The HCCC seeks an order for costs, regardless of whether the application for reinstatement is granted or dismissed. As explained in Ristevski v Medical Council of NS W [2016] NS W CATOD 18, a reinstatement application ordinarily has its genesis in a finding of professional misconduct involving conduct so egregious that cancellation of registration is required in the public interest, and provided the HCCC conducts its case appropriately it should be compensated regardless of whether the order is granted or refused. In conducting a review of a relevant order under s 163B of the National Law there is a public interest in the Tribunal being assisted by the HCCC because, without a contradictor, there would be a risk that the Tribunal might only have available the self-serving evidence adduced by the practitioner. The HCCC submits that it has acted properly and responsibly in the public interest as contradictor in the current application; it properly served its submissions and chronology to assist the Tribunal navigate the material; and it properly required the practitioner, his referee and his psychologist for cross-examination at the hearing. As the applicant acknowledges, there has been no disentitling conduct on the part of the HCCC. The applicant submits there should be no order as to costs. The Tribunal has a discretion, and while there w as no disentitling conduct by the HCCC the applicant had no choice but to make the application to the Tribunal to obtain re-registration as a nurse. The Tribunal acknowledges th e assistance provided by the HCCC in assessing the appropriateness of the applicant re gaining his registration, in its submissions on the applicable principles and the evidence and in the conduct of the hearing, in cross - examining the applicant and his witnesses Ms Guymer and Ms McGregor . The HCCC appeared and conducted its case appropriately, and assisted the Tribunal, and i n those circumstances i t is appropriate that it shou ld be awarded its costs. Orders The Tribunal orders: Pursuant to s 163B(1)(c) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NS W ) the Tribunal makes a reinstatement order. Pursuant to s 163B(1)(e)( i ) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NS W ) the Tribunal revokes the prohibition order made on 15 October 2024. Within 14 days from the date of publication of this decision t he parties are to provide to the Tribunal agreed terms of a condition to be imposed on the applicant ’ s registration under s 16 3 B( 4) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) in terms specified in [5 8 ]-[62] of these reasons, following which a further order will be made. The applicant is to pay the respondent ’ s costs pu rsuant t o cl 13 of Sch 5D to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NS W ), as agreed or assessed. ********** I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision 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 or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 28 August 2026