NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Reimers v Medical Council of New South Wales [2018] NSWCATOD 180 Hearing dates: 30 & 31 August 2018 Date of orders: 05 November 2018 Decision date: 05 November 2018 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: Haylen QC ADCJ, Principal Member Dr G Dore, Senior Member Dr K Liyanagama, Senior Member Dr C Berglund, General Member Decision: (1) Mr Reimers is found to be a fit and proper person to be registered as a medical practitioner, subject to the conditions specified in Annexure "A" to this decision. (2) Mr Reimers is to pay the costs of the Respondent Medical Council of NSW. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mr Gerrit Reimers (Applicant) Medical Council of New South Wales (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: T Rickard (Applicant) H El-Hage (Respondent) File Number(s): 2017/00316431 Publication restriction: Nil
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction 1. Mr Reimers has applied to the Tribunal seeking to review orders made by the Medical Tribunal in November 2003. In those proceedings he was found guilty of professional misconduct and his name was removed from the Register of Medical Practitioners. He had been initially suspended from medical practice in April 2000. The Tribunal also ordered that any application for review of its orders could not be filed or dealt with for a period of 10 years. 2. The present application for review is made under s 163A of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) (the National Law). Pursuant to the provisions of s 163B, on such a review this Tribunal may, inter alia, make a reinstatement order and may impose conditions to be met by the practitioner upon obtaining re-registration. By s 163B(3), a reinstatement order is defined as an order that the person may be registered in accordance with Part 7 of the legislation if (a) the person makes an application for registration to the National Board, and (b) the relevant National Board decides to register the person. An inquiry into an application for review is, by s 163C(1), a review to determine the appropriateness, at the time of review, of the order concerned.
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