Tisdall v Health Insurance Commission [2002] FCA 97

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Tisdall v Health Insurance Commission [2002] FCA 97 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – medical practitioner – inappropriate practice – Professional Services Review Committee – procedural fairness – form of referral – jurisdiction of Committee – whether proposed findings in excess of jurisdiction – apprehension of bias – waiver of bias– duty to act fairly – whether delay is breach of duty – expert bodies – duty to disclose way in which expertise used to reach conclusion

Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) ss 81, 82, 83, 86, 87, 93, 95, 96, 97, 99, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 106A, 106F, 106L, 106R, 106S, 106T, 106V, 117, 119 and 124A Veterinary Surgeons Act 1923 (NSW) Retnaraja v Morauta (1999) 93 FCR 397 followed Mercado v Holmes [2000] FCA 620 followed Grey v Health Insurance Commission [2001] FCA 1257 discussed Romeo v Asher (1991) 29 FCR 343cited Minister for Health v Thomson (1985) 8 FCR 213 followed R v Metropolitan Fair Rents Board; Ex parte Canestra [1961] VR 89 cited Spurling v Development Underwriting (Vic) Pty Limited [1973] VR 1 followed Roads Corporation v Dacakis [1995] 2 VR 508 discussed Kalil v Bray [1977] 1 NSWLR 256 followed Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 cited Pfizer Pty Ltd v Birkett [2000] FCA 303 discussed Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H [2001] HCA 28 followed Tankey v Adams [2000] FCA 1089 followed Jago v The District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23 followed Aronson and Dyer, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 2nd ed. at 419-425 PETER THOMAS TISDALL v HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION AND ORS V 849 OF 2000 TAMBERLIN J MELBOURNE 15 FEBRUARY 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 849 OF 2000

BETWEEN: DR PETER THOMAS TISDALL

APPLICANT

AND: HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION