Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2016
  4. Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia v Mberi - [2016] QCAT 451

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia v Mberi[2016] QCAT 451

Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia v Mberi[2016] QCAT 451

CITATION:

Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia v Mberi [2016] QCAT 451

PARTIES:

Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia (Applicant)

 

v

 

Jean Mberi

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR195-15

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Suzanne Sheridan, Deputy President

Assisted by:

Ms N Brook

Mr S Lewis

Mr K MacDougall

DELIVERED ON:

8 December 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

  1. Pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(ii) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld) (National Law), the tribunal finds that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct;
  2. Pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the National Law, the respondent is reprimanded;
  3. Pursuant to s 196(2)(b)(i) of the National Law and in accordance with the attached schedule of conditions, the tribunal imposes a condition on the respondent’s registration requiring completion of a course in professional ethics;
  4. Pursuant to s 196(3) of the National Law, the review period for the condition is six months;
  5. Subdivision 2, Division 11, Part 7 of the National Law applies to the condition; and
  6. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs as agreed in the sum of $10,000.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – DEPARTURE FROM ACCEPTED STANDARDS – where respondent practitioner was the subject of disciplinary proceedings in the United Kingdom – where the practitioner was subsequently registered in Australia – where practitioner failed to adequately notify the Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia of the United Kingdom proceedings – where failure to disclose was not deliberately misleading – where it is alleged and admitted that the practitioner engaged in unprofessional conduct – where a statement of agreed facts and joint proposal on sanction are submitted – whether the practitioner engaged in unprofessional conduct – whether the proposed sanction is appropriate

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld), s 125(2)(b), s 126(3)(b), s 127(3)(b), s 193(2)(b), s 196(1)(b)(ii), s 196(2)(a), s 196(2)(b)(i), s 196(3)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 102(3)

Medical Board of Australia v Kapadia [2015] QCAT 401, considered

Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376, applied

Pharmacy Board of Australia v Jattan [2015] QCAT 294, applied 

Psychology Board of Australia v Cameron [2015] QCAT 227, considered 

REPRESENTATIVES:

 

APPLICANT:

Moray & Agnew Solicitors for the applicant Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia 

RESPONDENT:

Roberts & Kane Solicitors for the resondent Jean Mberi 

APPEARANCES:

 

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

  1. [1]
    The respondent, Jean Mberi, is a registered nurse holding registration under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld) (National Law).  On 27 October 2015, the Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia (Board) referred disciplinary proceedings against Ms Mberi to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (tribunal) pursuant to s 193B of the National Law.  This referral was made on the basis that, pursuant to s 193(2)(b) of the National Law, the Health Ombudsman had asked the Board to continue to deal with the matter under the National Law.
  2. [2]
    The referral alleged that, pursuant to s 193(1)(a) of the National Law, the Board had formed the reasonable belief that Ms Mberi had behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct, and improperly obtained renewal of her registration by giving the Board an application for renewal of registration that was false or misleading in a material respect.
  3. [3]
    On 5 September 2016, the Board filed an amended referral.  The amended referral alleges Ms Mberi has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct, and improperly obtained renewal of her registration by giving the Board an application for renewal of registration that was misleading in a material respect.
  4. [4]
    Ms Mberi has conceded she has engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct, and the matter has proceeded before the tribunal by way of a statement of agreed facts and joint submissions on sanction and costs.
  5. [5]
    In addition, the parties have agreed the tribunal is to have regard to the referral, the response, the affidavit of Mr Duane Kaden, the amended referral and an agreed bundle of documents. 

Evidence

  1. [6]
    In or around February 2008, Ms Mberi was registered in the United Kingdom (UK) as a registered nurse with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC).  Between April 2008 and February 2012, Ms Mberi practised in the UK as a registered nurse. 
  2. [7]
    From in or about August 2009 to 24 February 2012, Ms Mberi was employed by St Andrew’s Healthcare, Northampton as a Deputy Ward Manager.
  3. [8]
    On 24 February 2012, Ms Mberi was dismissed from her employment at St Andrew’s Healthcare for gross misconduct, being misappropriation of patient property.
  4. [9]
    By letter dated 28 February 2012, the NMC advised Ms Mberi that:
    1. It had received an allegation from St Andrew’s Healthcare regarding her fitness to practice;
    2. The matter had been referred to an Investigation Committee for investigation; and
    3. An Investigating Committee Panel would be conducting a hearing on 14 March 2012 to consider whether interim action, including suspension of registration or the imposition of conditions, should be taken. 
  5. [10]
    On 14 March 2012, the Investigating Committee Panel conducted an interim order hearing and imposed an interim suspension order for a period of 18 months.
  6. [11]
    Meanwhile however, on 8 August 2011, Ms Mberi applied for registration with the Board as an overseas trained nurse.  On 9 March 2012, the Board granted Ms Mberi registration to 31 May 2012 as a registered nurse (Division 1) in Australia.
  7. [12]
    In an email to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) on 22 March 2012, Ms Mberi said:

I wanted to inform the board as per requirements of an allegation that was made against me in my previous employment in the UK.  …  Please confirm which email I can use to make this disclosure.

Ms Mberi did not at that point advise AHPRA of the nature or consequences of those allegations.

  1. [13]
    On 26 March 2012, AHPRA emailed Ms Mberi, advising her of the contact details sought. 
  2. [14]
    On 29 March 2012, Ms Mberi telephoned AHPRA.  In her response to the referral filed 24 February 2016, Ms Mberi stated that the telephone connection on that day was poor, and so she did not continue with the call.  She stated that she telephoned AHPRA the following day and spoke with an officer named Duane.  Ms Mberi said she informed Duane that:
    1. She had recently moved from the UK to Australia;  
    2. Allegations relating to misuse of a patient’s cash card had been made against her by her previous employer in the UK;
    3. The allegations had been referred to the police liaison unit;
    4. She pleaded guilty to the allegations and was cautioned;
    5. She was dismissed from her employment;
    6. The matter was referred to the NMC; and
    7. She had made full disclosure to her current employer who would be in contact with AHPRA.
  3. [15]
    In her response, Ms Mberi said she was advised by Duane that she was not required to make a notification as her conduct did not result in a criminal conviction.
  4. [16]
    Duane Kaden has provided an affidavit in these proceedings.  In his affidavit filed 5 May 2016, Mr Kaden deposes to the fact that he was previously employed as a customer service representative at AHPRA.  He states that he has no independent recollection of having received a phone call from Ms Mberi in which she discussed the matters referred to in her response.  Similarly, he does not recall giving advice to Ms Mberi that she did not need to make a notification as she had not received a criminal conviction.
  5. [17]
    However, Mr Kaden says he believes he would not have given such advice to Ms Mberi, or indeed anyone, as a customer service operator at AHPRA.  This assertion is based on the fact that he did not have authority to give advice to callers about whether to include, or not to include, information in his or her registration form or whether or not to make a notification to AHPRA.  Mr Kaden said, “This was simply not something I would have done within the scope of my role.”
  6. [18]
    Exhibited to the affidavit of Mr Kaden is a screen shot of the service request entered by him on 29 March 2012.  That service request indicates Mr Kaden received a telephone call from Ms Mberi on that date.  Ms Mberi asked about an email that had been sent to AHPRA, and Mr Kaden advised that the email had been received but was “not on file”. 
  7. [19]
    The service request records that telephone conversation as lasting for 23 seconds.  In his affidavit, Mr Kaden says that, given the brevity of the conversation, he does not consider he would have been able to listen to all the information Ms Mberi said she disclosed, and provide a response, within that timeframe.  There is no service request record of a telephone call on 30 March 2012 before the tribunal. 
  8. [20]
    In any event, in the statement of agreed facts Ms Mberi accepts that during the telephone conversation of 29 March 2012, she did not advise that her employment in the UK had been terminated, that she had been the subject of an investigation, nor that an interim order hearing had been held on 14 March 2012.
  9. [21]
    On 10 April 2012, Ms Mberi completed an online application to renew her registration in Australia.  The application for renewal contained the following question:

During your preceding period of registration, has your right to practise at a hospital or another facility at which health services are provided been withdrawn or restricted because of your conduct, professional performance or health?

  1. [22]
    Ms Mberi answered “No”.  The application contained the further question: 

Have you previously disclosed to AHPRA all known complaints made about you to: a registration authority; or another entity having functions relating to professional services provided by health practitioners or the regulation of health practitioners (in Australia or elsewhere)?

  1. [23]
    Despite having made no adequate disclosure to AHPRA regarding her conduct in the UK, Ms Mberi answered “Yes”.  Ms Mberi’s registration as a registered nurse in Australia was subsequently renewed on 12 April 2012.
  2. [24]
    Ultimately, on 23 July 2013, the UK Conduct and Competence Committee (CCC) found that Ms Mberi had engaged in dishonest conduct.  Specifically, it found that:
    1. On 26 January 2012, Ms Mberi withdrew £70 from the bank account of Patient A for her own use;
    2. On 13 February 2012, Ms Mberi removed Patient A’s bank card from the St Andrew’s Healthcare safe without authorisation and without Patient A’s consent; and
    3. On 13 February 2012, Ms Mberi withdrew £100 from the bank account of Patient A for her own personal use.
  3. [25]
    The CCC found that Ms Mberi’s dishonest conduct fell seriously short of the conduct and standards reasonably expected of a nurse, and was sufficiently serious to amount to misconduct.  The CCC found that there remained a “real and serious risk of repetition of her conduct in the future”, and that Ms Mberi’s fitness to practise was impaired because of her misconduct.  The CCC ordered that Ms Mberi’s registration be cancelled.
  4. [26]
    On 4 April 2012, the NMC notified AHPRA by email of Ms Mberi’s suspension.  On 23 May 2012, Ms Mberi voluntarily entered into undertakings with the Board to provide three-monthly reports addressing her honesty and trustworthiness in the workplace.
  5. [27]
    Ms Mberi denies having misappropriated any patient property.  She says that she used the patient’s cash card with the consent of the patient, and that her oversight on both occasions was that she failed to follow hospital policy by not logging out the cash card when she used it on behalf of the patient. 
  6. [28]
    Ms Mberi says she did not dispute the allegations because she was in the process of relocating to Australia with her young family, and she “thought at the time that complying with whatever they said would make life easier for me.”  She says, “If I wasn’t coming to Australia yes I would have stayed to fight to the bitter end”.[1]
  7. [29]
    Ms Mberi says that she was first advised of the interim suspension order of the Investigating Committee Panel on 26 April 2012, when she received correspondence from AHPRA inviting her to make submissions regarding the Board’s proposal to take immediate action pursuant to s 156 of the National Law.  Ms Mberi says:

I knew when the panel was to be held but when I checked online (NMC hearings) two days after the hearing there was nothing inputted.  The stress and anxiety caused by constantly checking to see the decision was made (sic) me physically ill.  I would vomit at the thought of going on line and this started to affect me at work and I was unable to concentrate and was on the verge of panic attacks at the thought of my career coming to an end.  I made a decision then to wait for the email and not go on line to check for updates.[2]

  1. [30]
    Prior to commencing work in Australia with her current employer, Ms Mberi met with Tony Swain, Nursing Director of the Institute of Mental Health Services at Townsville Health Service District.  She provided Mr Swain with a statutory declaration sworn 13 March 2012 comprehensively outlining the events that had occurred in the UK.  In his letter to Ms Mberi of 16 March 2012, Mr Swain accepted Ms Mberi’s explanation of the events which had occurred in the UK, and her explanation of why she accepted an official caution.  Relevantly, he said:

I intend to contact [AHPRA] to notify them that this matter has arisen, and to advise of the management strategies we will put in place to assist you to transition to our organisation.

  1. [31]
    At the time that Ms Mberi made these admissions to her employer, she was unaware of the Investigating Committee Panel’s interim suspension order.  She made her admission entirely of her own volition.
  2. [32]
    The parties have not asked the tribunal to decide the extent to which Ms Mberi provided any details to AHPRA as to the events in the UK, or the timeline of any disclosures.  The parties have agreed that the disclosure was insufficient, but that the non-disclosure was not a deliberate attempt at concealment and should be characterised as misleading and careless or reckless. 
  3. [33]
    Given Ms Mberi had fully disclosed the events in the UK to her Australian employer at the earliest opportunity and had been advised by them that they would contact AHPRA, this characterisation seems appropriate.  The tribunal accepts that Ms Mberi’s non-disclosure was not deliberately deceptive, but rather misleading and careless or reckless. 

Categorisation of conduct

  1. [34]
    Pursuant to s 41 of the National Law, a code or guideline approved by a National Board is admissible in proceedings against a registered practitioner as evidence of what constitutes appropriate professional conduct or practice for the health profession. 
  2. [35]
    The applicable professional and ethical guidelines at the time of Ms Mberi’s conduct in April 2012 are set out in the Code of Professional Conduct for Nurses in Australia (Code of Conduct) and the Code of Ethics for Nurses in Australia (Code of Ethics). 
  3. [36]
    It is agreed between the parties that by reason of Ms Mberi’s omission of relevant information with her application for renewal of registration, her conduct contravened the Codes of Ethics and Conduct.  Nurses who value quality nursing care for all people have a responsibility to ensure the professional roles they undertake are in accordance with agreed practice standards of the profession,[3] and the conduct of nurses should maintain and build public trust and confidence in the profession at all times.[4]
  4. [37]
    The tribunal accepts Ms Mberi’s misleading and careless or reckless non-disclosure is in contravention of her obligation under the Codes.  The tribunal finds that Ms Mberi has engaged in unprofessional conduct as that term is defined in the National Law. 

Sanction

  1. [38]
    There are a number of factors which must be taken into account in mitigation of Ms Mberi’s conduct.
  2. [39]
    From an early stage in these proceedings, Ms Mberi has accepted that she failed to disclose to AHPRA all relevant information when she applied to renew her registration.  As a result, the parties have reached an agreed position, which has obviated the need for a contested hearing.
  3. [40]
    It is clear Ms Mberi has the full support of her current employer.  In a letter to AHPRA dated 13 April 2012, it was stated that the Townsville Health Service District was:

Satisfied with Mrs Mberi’s account of events preceding her commencement of employment at Queensland Health and her stated commitment to positively and professionally contributing to the workplace and the care of others.

  1. [41]
    It was further stated Ms Mberi would be in an “actively supported performance development program tailored to her identified needs”, and that she would be undertaking “ongoing professional development supported by the workplace in addition to formal clinical supervision.”
  2. [42]
    Since her undertaking to the Board on 23 May 2012, Ms Mberi’s employer has provided reports to the Board on a three-monthly basis.  Those reports confirm her employer does not hold any concerns about her honesty or fitness to practice as a registered nurse.  Indeed, on all accounts, the reports show she is a highly valued member of staff.  Apart from the conduct the subject of these proceedings, Ms Mberi has not otherwise come to the Board’s attention since she commenced practise in Australia.
  3. [43]
    Ms Mberi’s early admissions and cooperation with the Board are demonstrative of a significant degree of insight on her part.
  4. [44]
    The parties jointly propose that the appropriate orders are that:
    1. Ms Mberi be reprimanded;
    2. Conditions be imposed on Ms Mberi’s registration requiring her to complete a course in professional ethics; and
    3. Ms Mberi pay the Board’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings as agreed in the sum of $10,000.
  5. [45]
    The parties have referred to the decisions of Psychology Board of Australia v Cameron[5] and Medical Board of Australia v Kapadia[6] as comparable for the purposes of assessing sanction.  In both those decisions, the practitioner was reprimanded and ordered to pay the relevant Board’s costs.  By reference to those authorities, the sanction proposed is within the appropriate range.  In those circumstances, there is no reason for the tribunal to depart from the proposed agreed sanction.[7] 
  6. [46]
    Pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the National Law, Ms Mberi will be reprimanded.  In all the circumstances, it would seem appropriate to the tribunal for such record to remain on the register for a period of no longer than six months, though ultimately that is a matter for the Board.[8]
  7. [47]
    Pursuant to s 196(2)(b)(i) of the National Law, conditions in the form of the schedule to these reasons will be imposed upon the registration of the practitioner, requiring completion of a course in professional ethics. 
  8. [48]
    Pursuant to s 196(3) of the National Law, the tribunal is required, if conditions are being imposed upon a practitioner’s registration, to nominate a review period for the conditions. The parties propose six months’ as the review period for the conditions, which seems appropriate.  An order will be made to that effect.
  9. [49]
    Finally, the tribunal will also make an order that Subdivision 2, Division 11, Part 7 of the National Law applies to the conditions.  This order recognises that s 125(2)(b), s 126(3)(b) and s 127(3)(b) of the National Law require an adjudication body[9] to decide, when imposing a condition, that that Subdivision applies to the condition so that the condition may be changed or removed by the Board pursuant to s 125, s 126 or s 127.

Costs

  1. [50]
    The parties have agreed that Ms Mberi should pay the Board’s costs in the sum of $10,000.
  2. [51]
    Such an order was regularly made under s 195 of the National Law, which conferred a broad jurisdiction on the Tribunal to “make any order about costs it considers appropriate for the proceedings”.  However, following the removal of s 195 by the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld),[10] the issue of costs falls to be determined under the provisions of the QCAT Act.
  3. [52]
    The relevant provisions of the QCAT Act provide that each party to a proceeding must bear its own costs unless otherwise provided in the QCAT Act or by an enabling Act,[11] or unless the interests of justice require it.[12]  The matters to which the tribunal may have regard in deciding whether to award costs are set out in s 102(3) of the QCAT Act. Those matters include “anything else the tribunal considers relevant.”
  4. [53]
    In this case, the parties have consented to the making of an order awarding costs.  In those circumstances, it seems appropriate that the cost of the proceedings be borne by the erring practitioner.
  5. [54]
    The appropriate order is that Ms Mberi should pay the Board’s costs, as agreed, in the sum of $10,000.

Orders

  1. [55]
    Accordingly, the tribunal orders that:
    1. Pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(ii) of the National Law, the tribunal finds that Ms Mberi has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct;
    2. Pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the National Law, Ms Mberi is reprimanded;
    3. Pursuant to s 196(2)(b)(i) of the National Law and in accordance with the attached schedule of conditions, the tribunal imposes a condition on Ms Mberi’s registration requiring completion of a course in professional ethics;
    4. Pursuant to s 196(3) of the National Law, the review period for the condition is six months;
    5. Subdivision 2, Division 11, Part 7 of the National Law applies to the condition; and
    6. Ms Mberi is to pay the Board’s costs as agreed in the sum of $10,000.

SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS

  1. Jean Mberi (Practitioner) is to undertake and successfully complete a program of education, approved by the Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia (Board) and including a reflective practice report, in relation to professional ethics.
  2. Within 28 days of the imposition of these conditions, the Practitioner must nominate to the Board for approval, in writing, an education course, assessment or program (the education) addressing the topics required.  The Practitioner must ensure she provides her nomination, as a minimum:
    1. (a)
      if a course of education is chosen, a copy of the curriculum;
    2. (b)
      if the education is to be a tailored program conducted by an individual, the Practitioner must provide a detailed plan of the training program and a copy of the curriculum vitae of the individual to provide the training.
  3. The Practitioner must complete the education within six months of the notice of the Board’s approval of the education.
  4. Within 28 days of the completion of the education, the Practitioner is to provide to the Board:
    1. (a)
      evidence of successful completion of the education;
    2. (b)
      a reflective practice report demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the Board, that the Practitioner has reflected on the issues that gave rise to these conditions and how the Practitioner has incorporated the lessons learnt in the education into the Practitioner’s practice; and
    3. (c)
      confirmation that the Practitioner has not included this education or the preparation of the reflective practice report to satisfy the Practitioner’s continuing professional development requirements.
  5. The Practitioner must not use the education and/or reflective practice report undertaken in compliance with these conditions to satisfy the Practitioner’s continuing professional development requirements.
  6. Within 14 days of the notice of the imposition of these conditions, the Practitioner is to provide to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), on the relevant form, the details of any and all places of practice, together with, where relevant, confirmation from the Director of Nursing (senior person) at each and every place of practice that they have sighted a copy of these conditions.
  7. With each and every subsequent place of practice the Practitioner must, within seven days of commencement of practice, provide to AHPRA the details of the subsequent place of practice together with written confirmation, where relevant, from the senior person at each and every subsequent place of practice that they have sighted a copy of these conditions.
  8. With each and every subsequent alteration to these conditions the Practitioner must, within seven days of the notice of alteration of these conditions, provide to AHPRA, written confirmation from the senior person, where relevant, at each and every place of practice that they have sighted a copy of the altered conditions.
  9. Unless expressly provided for within a condition, all costs associated with compliance with these conditions are at the Practitioner’s own expense.
  10. An AHPRA Manager or Team Leader may approve the nominated education course/program in accordance with these conditions.
  11. The Practitioner must provide to the Board any documentary evidence required by these conditions within the timeframes specified.
  12. Failure to comply with these conditions may be a ground for health, conduct or performance action against the Practitioner.  

Footnotes

[1] JM1 to the letter of Roberts & Kane to AHPRA of 8 May 2012.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Code of Ethics, Value Statement 1.

[4] Code of Conduct, Conduct Statement 9.

[5] [2015] QCAT 227.

[6] [2015] QCAT 401.

[7] Pharmacy Board of Australia v Jattan [2015] QCAT 294; Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376.

[8] National Law, s 226.

[9] Section 5 of the National Law defines “adjudication body” to include the tribunal.

[10] Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), subparagraph 50 of s 326.

[11] QCAT Act, s 100.

[12] Ibid, s 102(1).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia v Jean Mberi

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia v Mberi

  • MNC:

    [2016] QCAT 451

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Sheridan DCJ

  • Date:

    08 Dec 2016

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Medical Board of Australia v Kapadia [2015] QCAT 401
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 401
Cite 2 - [2015] QCAT 401
Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] QCAT 376
Cite 2 - [2013] QCAT 376
Pharmacy Board of Australia v Jattan [2015] QCAT 294
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 294
Cite 2 - [2015] QCAT 294
Psychology Board of Australia v Cameron [2015] QCAT 227
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 227
Cite 2 - [2015] QCAT 227

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Health Ombudsman v HPT [2019] QCAT 1141 citation
Health Ombudsman v Mberi [2022] QCAT 1792 citations
The Health Ombudsman v Kiley [2019] QCAT 191 citation
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.