Pharmacy Board of Australia v Huynh

CITATION:

Pharmacy Board of Australia v Huynh [2013] QCAT 308

PARTIES:	Pharmacy Board of Australia (Applicant)
v
Adam Huynh (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR193-11

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. Mr Huynh must pay the Board’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings as assessed in the sum of $29,592.60.

CATCHWORDS:

HEALTH PROFESSIONALS – PHARMACEUTICAL CHEMISTS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – where the Board referred a matter to the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings – where the registrant did not participate in the proceeding – where the Tribunal made an order that the registrant pay the Board’s costs of the referral – where the Board sought the registrant pay cost in an amount as assessed by a costs assessor – where the registrant made no submissions – whether the Tribunal should order the registrant to pay the Board’s costs as assessed

Pharmacy Board of Australia v Huynh [2013] QCAT 42, 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

On 12 December 2012 the Tribunal decided that grounds for disciplinary action had been established against Mr Huynh and, amongst other things, ordered that he was not able to apply for registration as a pharmacist for a period of one year.[1]
[1] Pharmacy Board of Australia v Huynh [2013] QCAT 042.
The Tribunal also ordered Mr Huynh to pay the Board’s costs of and incidental to proceedings in a sum agreed or as assessed.
By application filed on 11 April 2013 the Pharmacy Board of Australia has sought its costs in the sum of $29,592.60 as assessed by Hickey and Garratt Cost Assessors. The costs have been assessed on the District Court Scale.
By directions made on 30 April 2013, I ordered that the Board serve the application for costs and the material in support by forwarding it by prepaid post to the last known address of Mr Huynh. Service was deemed to have been effected seven working days after posting.
Mr Huynh was given 14 days within which to make any submissions on costs. Mr Huynh has made no submissions.
The Tribunal will order the Board has its costs as assessed in the sum of $29,592.60.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Pharmacy Board of Australia initiated disciplinary proceedings against Mr Huynh, a registered pharmaceutical chemist, by referring the matter to the Tribunal. The registrant, Mr Huynh, did not participate in the proceedings, resulting in the Tribunal ordering him to pay the Board’s costs associated with the referral. Subsequently, the Board sought an order for Mr Huynh to pay the costs in an amount determined by a costs assessor, to which Mr Huynh made no submissions. The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it should order Mr Huynh to pay the Board’s costs as assessed.

The Tribunal deliberated on the matter, taking into account that Mr Huynh, despite not participating in the proceedings, was still obligated to cover the Board’s costs. The Tribunal assessed that the costs should be quantified by a costs assessor and, in the absence of any submissions from Mr Huynh, found that the assessed costs should be enforceable. The Tribunal held that it was appropriate to order Mr Huynh to pay the Board’s costs as assessed by the costs assessor, given the lack of any contrary argument from Mr Huynh.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that Mr Huynh must pay the Board’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings as assessed in the sum of $29,592.60. This decision underscores the importance of participation in disciplinary proceedings and the implications of failing to do so, including the obligation to cover the associated costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established