WALTON v MOMOT [1997] NSWCA 334

WALTON v MOMOT

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

PRIESTLEY JA, HANDLEY JA and GROVE AJA 17 April 1997 [1997] NSWCA 334

PROFESSIONS — CHIROPRACTORS AND OSTEOPATHS ACT — DISCIPLINE — SUPRESSION ORDER FOR PRACTITIONER'S NAME

The respondent, a chiropractor, who faced disciplinary proceedings commenced by the appellant in the Chiropractors and Osteopaths Tribunal, made an application to the Tribunal for an order suppressing publication of his name. The Tribunal refused to make the order. The practitioner appealed to the Supreme Court alleging error of law. Spender AJ allowed the appeal and made a suppression order for an unlimited period.

HELD: By Handley JA (Priestley JA and Grove AJA agreeing) (allowing the appeal) (1) There was a prima facie presumption under the Act that the Tribunal would sit in public. Special or exceptional circumstances must therefore be shown before a suppression order can properly be made. This reflected the general principle that the administration of justice is carried out in public. John Fairfax & Sons Limited v The Police Tribunal (1986) 5 NSWLR 465; Bowen-James v Delegate of Director General Department of Health (29/7/91 Samuels JA unreported) applied. (2) The Tribunal had not erred in law in refusing to make a suppression order.

Priestley JA. The Court is in a position to give its decision immediately, I will ask Handley JA to give his reasons first.

Handley JA. This is an appeal by Merrilyn Walton, a director of the Health Care Complaints Commission, from a decision of Spender AJ. The Judge allowed an appeal by Alexander Momot from a decision of the Chiropractors and Osteopaths Tribunal given on 2 November 1994 when the Chairman declined to make a suppression order in respect of publication of the practitioner's name.

The right of appeal to the Supreme Court is conferred by s 52 of the Chiropractors and Osteopaths Act 1991 and relevantly is limited to decisions of the Tribunal on a point of law.