Rahman v Medical Board of Australia [2015] NSWCATOD 26

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Rahman v Medical Board of Australia [2015] NSWCATOD 26 Hearing dates: 24 March, 2015 Decision date: 24 March 2015 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: F Marks ADCJ, Principal Member Dr S Ieraci, Professional Member Dr V de Carvalho, Professional Member Dr C Berglund, Lay Member Decision: 1 The appellant is entitled to renewal of his limited registration for the period ending 11 March 2015 notwithstanding his failure to satisfactorily complete the AMC clinical examination.

2 The respondent is to pay one half of the costs of the appellant of the appeal Catchwords: Medical Practitioner- continual failure to pass examination required for continuation of limited registration-HELD appeal against refusal to renew limited registration allowed Legislation Cited: Health Practitioner regulation National Law (NSW) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Dr Mahammad Abdur Rahman (Applicant) Medical Board of Australia (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: K Richardson (Respondent)

Solicitors: Dibbs Barker (Applicant) Crown Solicitors Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 1420355

reasons for decision

Introduction 1. In these proceedings the appellant, Dr Mohammed Abdur Rahman appeals to this Tribunal under section 175 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) ("The National Law") from a decision of the respondent Medical Board of Australia made on 11 of November 2014 to refuse an application for renewal of limited registration. It was common ground that these proceedings were properly constituted and that the appeal was to be determined as an appeal de novo. Because there was some urgency, we advised the parties at the conclusion of the hearing on 24 March 2015 that we had determined to allow the appeal. We said; "The appellant is entitled to renewal of his limited registration for the period ending 11 March 2015 notwithstanding his failure to satisfactorily complete the AMC clinical examination." We also made a costs order in favour of the appellant. The material which follows represents our reasons for our decision.