[ad_1]
Ghosh v Health Care Complaints Commission [2022] NSWCA 229 (on AUSTLII).
Although stated briefly in the context of refusal of leave to appeal, this matter usefully mentions the duty of candour at [65]:
It was open to the Tribunal to infer that the appellant’s negative attitude explained, at least in part, why she was not frank and forthcoming to the Commission or the Tribunal. Far from being irrelevant to the Tribunal’s consideration, the appellant’s attitude to the disciplinary processes was germane to her obligation of candour to the Commission and the Tribunal: Lee v Health Care Complaints Commission [2012] NSWCA 80 at [62] (Barrett JA, Macfarlan JA and Tobias AJA agreeing); see also Bowen-James v Walton [1991] NSWCA 29, where the Court of Appeal (Samuels, Meagher and Handley JJA), when rejecting the proposition that a medical practitioner had a right to silence in disciplinary proceedings referred, at 7, to the “public interest in the proper discharge by medical practitioners of the privileges which the community accords to them, and in the due accounting for the exercise of the influence which the nature of the occupation permits them, and indeed requires them, to exert over their patients.”
[BillMaddensWordpress #2058]
[ad_2]
Source link
