Detailed Court Report: Broadbent v Medical Board of Australia Case

This report details a student's observation of the Broadbent v Medical Board of Australia case in the Supreme Court, focusing on Dr. Michael Russell's appeal against the Medical Board's decision to deny his medical registration. The report summarizes the arguments presented by both the applicant and the Board, the tribunal's initial dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction, and the court's ultimate ruling to strike out the appeal as vexatious. Personal observations highlight the court hierarchy, the Supreme Court's role in judicial review, and comparisons between the Supreme Court and Magistrate's Court in terms of function and structure. The report references relevant case law and legislation, including the QCAT Act and the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.

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.

COURT TRIP ASSIGNMENT 3
Personal Observation
The foregoing case was subject to multiple appeals. It was first heard by the Queensland Civil
and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). However, the applicant was not convinced by the
appellate court’s ruling and contested the ruling. Even prior to reaching the Supreme Court with
the matter, Broadbent had appealed the Tribunal’s decision in the court of appeal. He went ahead
to seek judicial review of the tribunal’s ruling in the top-most court of the land, the Supreme
Court. The case shows the hierarchy of courts in Singapore and also reveals the role of the
Supreme Court as the court of last resort. Its decision is final. It also shows the role played by the
Supreme Court in judicial review (Ellison. n.d.). It is the court with jurisdiction to settle matters
pertaining to administrative injustices which need review.
Similarities and Differences between Supreme Court and Magistrate’s Court
Having already witnessed the occurrences in a magistrate’s court, I noted some differences in
both structure and function between the magistrates’ court and the Supreme Court. In terms of
function, the magistrate court has jurisdiction to listen to minor cases that accrued minimal years
of imprisonment. On the other hand, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review administrative
issues, like Broadbent’s case and issues that touched on the rights and liberty of an individual
(constitutional law issues). It also listens to appeals from the appellate court and capital offences.
Additionally, while the decisions by the magistrate’s court can be appealed in an appellate court,
those made by the Supreme Court are binding to both parties. I noticed a difference in the jury
bench that was present to hear cases in the Supreme Court but in magistrate courts, the
magistrate hears and decides. The similarities between the two is that both have a judge as the
final decision maker.

COURT TRIP ASSIGNMENT 4
References
Administrative Appeals Tribunal. (2015). Tribunals in Australia: Their roles and responsibilities.
Retrieved from http://www.aat.gov.au/about-the-aat/engagement/speeches-and-papers/
the-honourable-justice-garry-downes-am-former-pre/tribunals-in-australia-their-roles-
and-responsib
Broadbent v Medical Board of Australia [2014] QCATA 329. Retrieved from
https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2014/QCATA14-329.pdf
Broadbent v Medical Board of Australia [2018] QCAT 25
https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2018/QCAT18-025.pdf
Broadbent v Medical Board of Queensland. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/case/id/71882
Ellison, M. (n.d.). Medical practitioner, abuse of process, disciplinary proceedings,
unsatisfactory professional conduct, undertaking, surgeon, specialist registration - Case
summary. Retrieved from https://www.minterellison.com/articles/michael-russell-mark-
broadbent-v-medical-board-of-australia
Queens Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act