DYB v Medical Board of Australia (No 2) [2020] NSWCATOD 34

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: DYB v Medical Board of Australia (No 2) [2020] NSWCATOD 34 Hearing dates: By written submissions dated 18 February 2020 and 6 March 2020 Date of orders: 27 March 2020 Decision date: 27 March 2020 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: Boland AM ADCJ, Deputy President Decision: (1) Dr DYB's application for costs is dismissed. Catchwords: PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – health care professionals – medical practitioner – where costs sought in respect of appeals under s 175 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) Cases Cited: Health Care Complaints Commission v Do [2014] NSWCA 307 Health Care Complaints Commission v Philipiah [2013] NSWCA 342 Optimisation Australia Pty Ltd (Costs) [2018] NSWSC 280 Qasim v Health Care Complaints Commission [2015] NSWCA 282 Category: Costs Parties: Dr DYB (Applicant) Medical Board of Australia (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: K Richardson SC (Respondent)

Solicitors: Dr DYB (Self represented) Turks Legal (Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/00035995, 2018/00044125, 2018/00192718 Publication restriction: Non publication orders were made on 18 October 2019 under s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. On 18 October 2019 the Tribunal published reasons for decision in respect of a number of appeals brought by Dr DYB against the Medical Board of Australia (the Board). The Tribunal ordered the decision of the Board be set aside and permitted Dr DYB to be registered subject to different conditions to those which had been imposed by the Board. 2. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board's senior counsel advised the Tribunal that the Board would not seek an order for costs against Dr DYB with the effect that each party would pay their own costs. 3. Dr DYB requested and was granted a number of extensions of time to file submissions on costs. It is not in dispute that Dr DYB did not incur legal costs associated with retention of lawyers and she was self-represented throughout the proceedings. Dr DYB now seeks reimbursement for disbursements.