NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Brush v Health Care Complaints Commission [2018] NSWCATOD 76 Hearing dates: 3 May 2018 Date of orders: 25 May 2018 Decision date: 25 May 2018 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: The Hon F Marks, (Principal Member) A Linn, (Professional Member) E Clark, (Professional Member) R Kusuma, (General Member) Decision: (1) The application is dismissed (2) The applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent of these proceedings in an amount assessed in default of agreement. Catchwords: Health practitioner – application for review of cancellation of registration – insufficient insight contrition and remorse-insufficient attempts to gain knowledge of matters giving rise to misconduct – application refused-costs order Legislation Cited: Health Practitioner Regulation National Law NSW Cases Cited: Health Care Complaints Commission v Brush [2015] NSWCATOD 120 Haber v Health Care Complaints Commission [2018] NSWCATOD 16. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Grant Brush (applicant) Health Care Complaints Commission (Respondent Representation: Counsel:
A Britt (Respondent)
Solicitors: Applicant self-represented Health Care Complaints Commission (Respondent) File Number(s): 2017/00286898 Publication restriction: Non-publication order of the name of any patient or former patient of the applicant or any information which might tend to identify such person.
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