JUDGMENTS

Queensland

2 September 2013 - Tabanas v Medical Board of Australia [2013] QCAT 522
Health practitioners – medical practitioners – licences and registration – where the registrant held limited registration for an area of need – where the registrant applied for renewal of his registration – where the Board refused to renew the registrant's registration – where the registrant sought a stay of the Board's decision – whether the Tribunal should stay the Board's decision to refuse to renew the registrant's limited registration in an area of need.

20 September 2013 - Tabanas v Medical Board of Australia (No 2) [2013] QCAT 523
Health practitioner – medical practitioner – licences and registration – where the Board refused to renew the registrant's limited registration in an area of need – where the registrant sought a review of the Board's decision – where the registrant applied for a stay – where the Tribunal granted a stay until a specified date – where the registrant sought an extension of the stay beyond the specified date – where the registrant sought a stay beyond the period for which registration could be renewed – whether the Tribunal should extend the stay of the Board's decision.

5 November 2013 - Tabanas v Medical Board of Australia (No 3) [2013] QCAT 524
Dr Tabanas migrated to Australia in 2008 and was granted what was then "special purpose registration," enabling him to fill an area of need in group general practice. His registration was conditional upon him applying for general or specialist registration within four continuous years of initial registration. He failed to do this, having failed the required examinations on six occasions. The Medical Board of Australia therefore refused to renew his limited registration.

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal granted a stay of the Board's decision to permit Dr Tabanas to sit examinations he was already enrolled in, the successful completion of which could assist his application for review of that decision. Dr Tabanas failed those examinations and applied for a further stay to pursue alternative pathways to full registration. This was dismissed but the substantial proceedings were not.

Dr Tabanas argued in those proceedings that the most accurate way to assess his competency was to examine his history, submitting that he had practised for 20 years without complaint and other medical practitioners and allied health professionals spoke highly of his abilities.

Judge Horneman-Wren was not convinced, determining that a non-injurious and complaint free practice period did not equate to an adequate level of competence. Conversely, examinations set measurable standards of competence and minimum necessary requirements for the profession and "repeated failures to meet those standard requirements provide a sound basis for concluding that the person [cannot] demonstrate a sufficient level of competence." The decision to refuse registration was therefore correct.

New South Wales

8 November 2013 - Ary v Sydney South West Area Health District [2013] NSWIRComm 96
Appeal - Application for leave to appeal and appeal from decision of Commissioner Tabbaa - Extension of time - Whether appellant should be granted an extension of time in which to appeal - Whether explanation for filing application was satisfactory - Prospects of success on appeal - Extension refused.

Western Australia

1 November 2013 - Barr v Farrell [2013] WASCA 211(S)
Practice and procedure - Costs - Appeal against dismissal of application by appellant for extension of time - Appeal allowed - Whether order for costs against appellant at first instance should be disturbed - Whether appellant entitled to costs of appeal - Application by respondents under Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA).

To read this Newsletter in full, please click here.

© DLA Piper

This publication is intended as a general overview and discussion of the subjects dealt with. It is not intended to be, and should not used as, a substitute for taking legal advice in any specific situation. DLA Piper Australia will accept no responsibility for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this publication.


DLA Piper Australia is part of DLA Piper, a global law firm, operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. For further information, please refer to www.dlapiper.com