Tribunal strikes out an application to review decision by Medical Board to refuse registration

18 May 2018

A tribunal has struck out an application for a review of a decision by the Medical Board to refuse registration.

A tribunal has struck out an application for a review of a decision by the Medical Board to refuse to register an individual who was previously registered as a medical practitioner.

The tribunal found Mr Michael Russell Mark Broadbent’s review application to be an abuse of process, vexatious and a collateral attack on the earlier decisions of the Health Practitioners Tribunal (former tribunal) and the Court of Appeal following the outcome of disciplinary proceedings brought by the Medical Board of Australia (the Board) against him.

In 2007 and 2008, the Medical Board of Queensland started disciplinary proceedings against former medical practitioner Mr Michael Broadbent before the former tribunal. The allegations in those proceedings related to his inappropriate treatment of 13 patients, including that he may have contributed to the death of some of those patients.

In 2008, Mr Broadbent retired, ceased practising and surrendered his registration.

On 18 June 2009, the former tribunal made orders for the matters relating to two of the 13 patients to proceed to hearing. The matters relating to the other patients were held in abeyance.

Upon commencement of the relevant legislation in December 2009, the proceedings continued in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the tribunal) and on 10 June 2010, the tribunal delivered its findings. The tribunal was satisfied that some, but not all, of the allegations against Mr Broadbent were established and made a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct.

In September 2010, the tribunal proposed that the matter be resolved by Mr Broadbent providing an undertaking1 that he:

  • retire permanently from medical practice
  • never reapply for registration in Australia as a practising medical practitioner, and
  • not seek to be relieved of the undertaking.

Although he was not present at the hearing, Mr Broadbent’s legal representatives advised that he agreed to the undertaking proposed by the tribunal.

Between 2010 and 2011, Mr Broadbent unsuccessfully appealed the tribunal’s decision in the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Queensland and the Federal Court of Australia.

In 2014, Mr Broadbent applied to the Board for registration as a medical practitioner. The application was refused on the basis of the undertaking he had previously provided to the tribunal in 2010.

Mr Broadbent sought a review by the tribunal of the Board’s decision to refuse his application for registration. The Board responded by applying to have the review application struck out, under section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (Qld), on the basis that it was vexatious and an abuse of process.

The tribunal agreed with the Board’s submissions that Mr Broadbent’s review application was:

  • in direct contradiction to the terms of the undertaking given by him
  • sought to re-litigate matters which had been finally determined, and
  • a collateral attack on the previous decision of the tribunal and the decision of the Court of Appeal.

Based on these reasons, the tribunal made an order to strike out Mr Broadbent’s application.

The decision is published on the AustLII website.


1National Boards can seek and accept an undertaking from a practitioner to limit the practitioner’s practice in some way if this is necessary to protect the public. The undertaking means the practitioner agrees to do, or to not do something in relation to their practice of the profession. (The undertaking in this matter was given to the tribunal, not the Board).

 

 
 
Page reviewed 18/05/2018