Court Trip Assignment: Broadbent v Medical Board of Australia [2014] QCATA 329

Running head: COURT TRIP ASSIGNMENT 1
Court Trip Assignment
Student Name:
Date of Visit: 26 July 2018
Time: Between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
Court Attended: The Supreme Court
Name of Judge: Judge Alexander Horneman-Wren.
On 26 July 2018, I witnessed the case of Broadbent v Medical Board of Australia [2014]
QCATA 329 in the Supreme Court. Dr. Michael Russell was appealing the decision of the
Medical Board of Australia to deny his application for general registration as a medic under the
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. The appeal was in line with the QCAT Rules (form
39) and s 199 of the National Law.
Issues in Question:
A judicial review of the Medical Board’s conduct regarding the appellant’s application.
The jurisdiction of the tribunal on issues of judicial review
Summary of Arguments:
Applicant’s Position
Dr. Russell argued that the grounds of the application were unfair as he had not been accorded
legal representation, apprehended him on firm ground unfair tactics, contravened the principle of
QCAT and that he was not being given fair hearing prior to striking out his medical application
for registration (Broadbent v Medical Board of Australia [2014] QCATA 329).
The Board’s Argument

COURT TRIP ASSIGNMENT 2
The Board referred back to how the applicant’s medical negligence on 13 of his former patients
had seen him surrender his specialist registration and retire in 2008. It argued that earlier
disciplinary proceedings meant Broadbent could not be accorded registration and sought to see
the appeal struck out, citing abuse of process.
The Tribunal
The tribunal had dismissed Broadbent’s application citing a lack of jurisdiction and thus not one
to be dealt with by the tribunal, but rather the Supreme Court of Queensland. While Broadbent
sought to appeal the case in the Supreme Court, the Tribunal had refused Broadbent’s application
stating the following reasons:
First, that s 43(1) of the QCAT Act which required people to represent themselves in such
disputes had not been adhered to by the appellant as he had sent representatives. Subsection 2
further provides for representation by another only if the tribunal had given leave.
The tribunal also argued that it was not possible to grant Dr. Broadbent’s application because of
a lack of jurisdiction. According to the tribunal, he wrote a letter to the tribunal raising issues of
representation citing prejudice and disadvantage, while also claiming a barrier forged between
him and the board (Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 2015). The tribunal saw it only appropriate
that the members be brought forth as witnesses in this proceeding.
Court’s Ruling
The court was of the opinion that the appeal by Mr. Broadbent was only motivated by the need to
re-agitate previously litigated matters. It was realized that the appeal was not intended to review
the Board’s decision to refuse to grant him registration and thus his actions amounted to an abuse
of process. The appeal was deemed vexatious and struck out by the court. Parties were ordered to
file submissions on the expenses within 14 days of the publication of judgment.