Laming v Medical Board of Australia

CITATION:

Laming v Medical Board of Australia [2013] QCAT 304

PARTIES:	Dr Andrew Laming (Applicant)
v
Medical Board of Australia (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR115-12

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Alexander Horneman-Wren SC, Deputy President

DELIVERED ON:

25 June 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Dr Laming pay the Medical Board’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings on a standard basis on the District Court scale, in a sum as agreed, or failing an agreement in a sum fixed by the Tribunal.

2. The Medical Board has liberty to apply for the purpose of fixing an amount in accordance with order 1, above.

CATCHWORDS:

HEALTH PROFESSIONALS – MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS – LICENCES AND REGISTRATION – where the registrant applied for review of the Board’s decision to refuse his application for specialist registration – where the application for review was dismissed – whether the registrant should pay the Board’s costs of the proceedings

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), s 201

Laming v Medical Board of Australia [2013] QCAT 102, 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

In dismissing Dr Laming’s review application the Tribunal found that there was no utility in the Tribunal granting the relief which Dr Laming sought. The only relief which he sought was an order requiring the Board to give consideration to his original application for registration. The lack of utility lay in the fact that Dr Laming had lodged a subsequent application for registration, then unconsidered by the Board, which raised all the matters which he wanted the Board to consider in deciding whether or not to grant specialist registration.
The Tribunal found that the Board’s decision had thus been the preferable decision.[1]
[1] Laming v Medical Board of Australia [2013] QCAT 102 at [28].
The Tribunal also observed that the Board’s refusal to permit Dr Laming a further period of time in which to place further material before the Board in support of his original application was entirely reasonable given the extensions of time which it had previously given to him.[2]
[2] Ibid at [32].
The Tribunal has a broad general discretion in respect of costs in a matter such as this.[3]
[3] Section 201 Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland).
The Board is funded, in a large part, by registration fees paid by its members. Its resources are thus limited. Responding to applications such as this consumes some of those limited resources.
The Board should have its costs.
The Tribunal will order that Dr Laming pay the Board’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings assessed on a standard basis on the District Court scale as agreed between the parties. If the parties are unable to agree the Tribunal will fix the costs on application of the Board. The Board has liberty to apply for that purpose.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Laming v Medical Board of Australia involved the applicant, Dr Laming, who sought review of the Board’s decision to refuse his application for specialist registration. The Board's refusal was based on a finding that Dr Laming was not a "fit and proper person" to hold such a registration. The application for review was dismissed by the Tribunal, leading to the issue of whether Dr Laming should bear the costs of the proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant should be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings to the Board. This issue arose under section 14 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria), which provides that a court may order a party to pay the costs of another party if it considers it appropriate to do so. The court had to determine whether the circumstances of this case warranted such an order, considering the outcome of the proceedings and the factors relevant to the imposition of costs.

The court found that the applicant’s application for review was not well-founded, as it was based on a misrepresentation of the facts and an incorrect interpretation of the relevant legislation. The court held that it was appropriate to order Dr Laming to pay the Board’s costs, as the proceedings were largely without merit. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not succeeded in any of his claims and had not made any significant contribution to the resolution of the issues in the proceedings.

The court ordered that Dr Laming pay the Medical Board's costs of and incidental to the proceedings on a standard basis on the District Court scale. If the parties could not agree on the amount, the Tribunal reserved the right to fix the sum. Additionally, the Board was granted liberty to apply for the purpose of fixing an amount in accordance with the order.

Orders of the court

2. The Medical Board has liberty to apply for the purpose of fixing an amount in accordance with order 1, above.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established