Dr Quach v New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Case [2015] NSWSC 629

Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dr Quach v New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2015] NSWSC 629
Hearing dates:22 May 2015
Date of orders: 22 May 2015
Decision date: 22 May 2015
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:

See paragraph 8

Catchwords: CIVIL LAW – transfer of proceedings into the Court of Appeal
Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Act 1970
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Dr Michael Van Thanh Quach (Plaintiff)
New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (1st Defendant)
New South Wales Heath Care Complaints Commission (2nd Defendant)
Representation: Counsel: Dr Quach in person
Ms Christian (1st Defendant)
Ms T Wong (2nd Defendant)
File Number(s):2015/131892

ex tempore Judgment

  1. The New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission seeks a removal of proceedings which are before this Court into the Court of Appeal for disposition in that jurisdiction.

  2. Dr Quach appears in person before the Court. He does not wish to be heard against the application to remove the matter to the Court of Appeal. He understands, I think, that his rights are in no way affected by the removal and he will have the opportunity before the Court of Appeal to have his applications determined.

  3. Dr Quach already has some matters before the Court of Appeal and that is the Court which has been allocated to deal with the matters..

  4. In those circumstances it is appropriate to remove these proceedings to that Court.

  5. There are orders from the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which filed a submitting appearance today, which Dr Quach seeks to have reviewed. The decisions of which he seeks review were presided over by an Acting District Court judge and, an Acting District Court judge being for all relevant purposes a judge of the District Court, s 48 Supreme Court Act is enlivened. The operation of s 48 is such that the transfer of the matter to the Court of Appeal is the appropriate course.

  6. Accordingly I propose to make an order pursuant to s 51(1)(b) to remove the matter into the Court of Appeal to be joined before that Court with other matters involving Dr Quach, and dealt with in that Court.

  7. I propose to grant the Health Care Complaints Commission’s motion and make an order that the proceedings that are before the Court be removed into the Court of Appeal. That will allow joinder of the various proceedings.

Orders

  1. The court orders are as follows:

  1. Proceedings are to be removed into the Court of Appeal.

  2. Date is to be fixed by the Court of Appeal Registrar.

**********

Details
AGLC
Dr Quach v New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2015] NSWSC 629
Case
[2015] NSWSC 629
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dr Quach, a medical practitioner, filed an application against the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal, seeking to transfer proceedings from the tribunal to the Court of Appeal. The dispute arose from a decision by the tribunal that Dr Quach had breached professional standards, resulting in penalties and conditions imposed on his medical practice. Dr Quach contended that the tribunal had acted beyond its jurisdiction and that the appeal should be heard in the Court of Appeal, which has broader powers of review.

The court was required to determine whether the tribunal's decision warranted a transfer to the Court of Appeal. This involved examining the jurisdiction of the tribunal, the nature of the appeal, and the circumstances under which a transfer might be appropriate. The court needed to balance the tribunal's authority in professional disciplinary matters against the need to ensure that judicial review is available when there are substantial questions of law involved.

The court found that the tribunal had acted within its jurisdiction and that the issues raised by Dr Quach were within the scope of the tribunal's powers. The court held that there was no basis for transferring the proceedings to the Court of Appeal, as the tribunal's decision did not involve jurisdictional error or significant legal questions that could not be addressed by the tribunal itself. Consequently, the application for transfer was dismissed.

The court ordered that Dr Quach pay the tribunal's costs associated with the application. This decision underscored the importance of respecting the specific jurisdictions of administrative tribunals while also ensuring that avenues for review are available when necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.