Reimers v Health Care Complaints Commission [2026] NSWCATOD 19 (Link to Caselaw).
By application filed on 24 July 2025 Gerrit Reimers (the Applicant) sought orders against the Health Care Complaints Commission in relation to a decision of the Medical Tribunal of 4 November 2003. The orders in effect wanted the Commission to explain why that earlier Tribunal came to its decision.
The Commission sought orders that the proceedings be summarily dismissed pursuant to s55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.
By way of background, on 4 November 2003 a Medical Tribunal heard and determined a number of complaints about the Applicant, found him guilty of professional misconduct and ordered that his name be removed from the Register of Medical Practitioners and that he not apply for a review of those orders for 10 years from the date of the decision. In 2012 and 2013 the Applicant sought to challenge the Tribunal’s decision of November 2003 in the NSW Court of Appeal. Each application was dismissed. The Applicant applied for reinstatement which was refused by the Tribunal In a decision delivered on 27 April 2015 On 5 November 2018 a Tribunal granted the Applicant’s application for reinstatement pursuant to s 163A of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (the National Law) subject to extensive conditions which it is clear were expected to provide a pathway for the Applicant to achieve a supervised return to practise.
On 10 January 2023 the Applicant applied to the Medical Board of Australia for specialist registration in anaesthesia. This was refused on 1 August 2023. On 16 August 2023 the Applicant appealed the Board’s refusal of his application for specialist registration to the Tribunal which dismissed the appeal on 22 December 2023.
Returning to the present matter, by the orders sought, the Applicant requires the Commission to explain the effect of the 2003 decision to him. The Tribunal said that the application can be swiftly disposed of.
First, the Applicant brings his application against the Commission which has made no operative decision in relation to his registration other than act, as it was statutorily obliged, to investigate the complaint about the Applicant referred to it by the Medical Board of Australia and which was ultimately heard and determined in the 2003 proceedings. It has no function which would enable it to explain the reasons to the Applicant.
Secondly, the Commission argues that the orders sought by the Applicant are beyond the Tribunal’s power. As Armstrong J recently observed in Shapkin v Council of the Law Society of NSW [2025] NSWCATOD 66 at [41]
NCAT is a tribunal with limited jurisdiction. Its jurisdiction and functions are derived from the NCAT Act, enabling legislation and legislative instruments beyond its enabling legislation, as well as regulations and statutory rules. NCAT cannot exercise jurisdiction beyond that set out in statute, other than its anterior jurisdiction to decide whether proceedings brought before it are within its limited jurisdiction
There is no power which would allow this Tribunal to order the Commission to do any of the acts he requires.
The application was dismissed.
[BillMaddensWordpress #2497]