NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Health Care Complaints Commission v Negus [2021] NSWCATOD 50 Hearing dates: 1 – 3, 5 March 2021 Date of orders: 4 May 2021 Decision date: 04 May 2021 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: O Shub, Senior Member P McAsey, Senior Member J Zwart, Senior Member Honorary Associate Prof P Macneill, General Member Decision: (1) The Respondent is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct in respect of his behaviour while working as a registered pharmacist. (2) Had the Respondent been a registered pharmacist, the Tribunal would have cancelled his registration with immediate effect. (3) The Respondent shall not be entitled to apply for registration as a pharmacist for a period of one year from the date of this order. (4) The Respondent shall pay one third of the Applicant's costs as agreed or assessed. Catchwords: HEALTH — professional registration and discipline —— complaints — pharmacist — keeping of Schedule 8 drugs — failure to maintain dangerous drugs register — dispensing on improper prescriptions Legislation Cited: Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW) Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW) Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulation 2008 (NSW) Cases Cited: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34 Bronze Wing International Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW [2017] NSWCA 41 Clyne v The New South Wales Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR 186; [1960] HCA 40 Health Care Complaints Commission v Do [2014] NSWCA 307 Health Care Complaints Commission v Duggan [2015] NSWCATOD 142 Health Care Complaints Commission v Meneghetti [2020] NSWCATOD 39 Health Care Complaints Commission v Philipiah [2013] NSWCA 342 Lee v Health Care Complaints Commission [2012] NSWCA 80 Prakash v Health Care Complaints Commission [2006] NSWCA 153 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Health Care Complaints Commission (Applicant) John Negus (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A Petrie (Applicant) R Withana (Respondent)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate