Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
- Unreported Judgment
Wakelin v Psychology Board of Australia QCAT 89
Wakelin v Psychology Board of Australia  QCAT 89
Angela Claire Wakelin
Psychology Board of Australia
Occupational regulation matters
24 February 2017
Judge Suzanne Sheridan, Deputy President
24 February 2017 (ex tempore)
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEDURE IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS AND TRIBUNALS – OTHER MATTERS – where pursuant to s 196(2)(b)(i) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld) the Tribunal imposed a condition upon the respondent practitioner’s registration following the hearing of a disciplinary referral – where the parties by consent sought a variation of that order pursuant to s 133 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) – whether the Tribunal’s original orders should be varied
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld), s 127(3)(b), s 196
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 61, s 133
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld), r 89
The applicant appeared on her own behalf
N Geisler, Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency for the Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
- The Tribunal has before it a miscellaneous application dated 23 February 2017, brought in application number OCR054-14 Psychology Board of Australia v Angela Wakelin, which application is made jointly by the parties.
- The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) gave its substantive decision in the matter on 16 October 2014 and 3 November 2014. Included in the order of the Tribunal was an order made pursuant to s 196(2)(b)(i) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld) (National Law). The joint application has been filed by the parties seeking a variation of the original order made by the Tribunal. By consent, the parties have agreed the terms of the varied orders.
- The orders made by the Tribunal included an order imposing conditions on the registration of the respondent psychologist. In the application for the miscellaneous matters, the parties have said that the Tribunal did not:
- Decide a review period of the conditions, as required by s 196(3) of the National Law; or
- State pursuant to s 127(3)(b) of the National Law that subdivision 2, division 11, part 7 of the National Law applies.
- The miscellaneous application is said to be brought pursuant to s 133 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act). That section applies if, amongst other things, “there are problems interpreting, implementing or enforcing the Tribunal’s final decision in a proceeding.”
- The application correctly recognises that the application under s 133 is to be brought within the period stated in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Rules). Rule 89 of the QCAT Rules provides that an application under s 133 is to be made within 28 days after the relevant day. “Relevant day” is defined to mean the day the parties are given notice of the decision.
- Section 61 of the QCAT Act, however, gives to the Tribunal power to extend a time limit under the Act. The application identifies, in paragraphs 6 to 8 of the application, the problems caused by the current orders made by the Tribunal. Having regard to those problems, this is clearly a case where clarification of the decision made is necessary. In those circumstances, it is appropriate that the Tribunal grant any extension of time required to enable the application to be made and any necessary corrections to be made to the final decision.
- In bringing the matter to the attention of the Tribunal, the parties have proposed amended orders.
- The proposed amended orders as required by s 196(3) of the National Law include a review period for the conditions. Both parties have agreed that the period should be 12 months. Having read the initial decision of the Tribunal and on the basis of the submissions made, the Tribunal accepts a review period of 12 months is appropriate.
- Further, given that a review period is required to be imposed, it is appropriate that review be conducted by the National Board rather than requiring the parties to make a further application to this Tribunal. It is the Board that monitors compliance with the conditions and it is the Board that is better placed to conduct that review.
- In the circumstances, pursuant to its power under s 133, the Tribunal will amend the decision given on 3 November 2014 to incorporate into the terms of its decision the proposed amended orders of the parties. A copy of their renewed decision will be provided to each party.
- Published Case Name:
Angela Claire Wakelin v Psychology Board of Australia
- Shortened Case Name:
Wakelin v Psychology Board of Australia
 QCAT 89
24 Feb 2017