Australia, Aug. 16 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 15:

1. Mr Singh is a chiropractor. In Singh v Health Care Complaints Commission [2024] NSWSC 1307 the Supreme Court set aside the orders made by the Tribunal in Health Care Complaints Commission v Singh [2023] NSWCATOD 124 (the Stage 1 decision). Those orders were that Mr Singh was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct as defined in s 139B and 139E of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) (National Law) . The conduct was that Mr Singh had engaged in inappropriate sexual communication with Patient A and intimate physical touching of her during a treatment session. The Supreme Court also set aside each of the protective orders the Tribunal had made in the Tribunal's Stage 2 decision. One of those protective orders was an order cancelling Mr Singh's registration: Health Care Complaints Commission v Singh [2024] NSWCATOD 46 (the Stage 2 decision).

2. The Supreme Court held, among other things, that the Tribunal had made material errors by finding that Mr Singh had colluded with three of his witnesses when preparing their evidence. The Supreme Court then ordered that:

The matter be remitted to the Occupational Division of NCAT for rehearing according to law.

3. The Commission applied for an order that the Tribunal should admit into evidence the original complaint lodged by Patient A to the Commission and her statements dated 10 December 2021 and 10 March 2023. The admissibility of that evidence is uncontroversial.

4. The Health Care Complaints Commission also applied for an order that, on the rehearing, the Tribunal admit into evidence the transcript and audio recording of the oral evidence previously given by Patient A on 26 and 27 June 2023 (Patient A's transcript evidence). The reason for that application is that Patient A is not prepared to give oral evidence again and the Commission does not intend to issue a summons for her to attend to give evidence. Ms Joan Lee, a solicitor employed by the Commission, provided an affidavit dated 16 June 2025 where she set out the content of a phone call she had with Patient A on 16 June 2025 and an email exchange between herself and Patient A after that phone call.

5. Mr Singh also provided an affidavit dated 26 March 2025 stating that this matter has had a significant impact on him professionally, personally, emotionally and mentally. He has been under the care of a psychologist since 31 May 2024. He says he is currently experiencing severe anxiety, depression, and people avoidance as well as dealing with suicidal thoughts. He has been prescribed anti-depressant and pain management medication. Mr Singh stated that he is "physically, mentally and financially unable to endure another hearing". Despite this evidence, Mr Singh indicated that he does intend to give oral evidence again.

6. Mr Singh submitted that if the transcript evidence is admitted, it not only tramples on his rights but adopts a different rule for this case compared to all other cases heard by the Tribunal involving health practitioners. If the Tribunal makes the order sought, he will have to give evidence twice whereas the evidence of Patient A will be taken in written form only from the first hearing.

7. The Commission indicated that they would not oppose Mr Singh also relying on the transcript and audio recording of all the respondent's evidence. Mr Singh did not agree to the rehearing being determined without oral evidence.

8. Before considering whether the Tribunal should make an advance ruling on the admissibility of Patient A's evidence, and what that ruling should be, I make some preliminary observations as to what is meant by a "rehearing according to law" in the circumstances of this case.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19806f82dd8e1ec4473edeee)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.