Australia, April 8 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on March 7:

1. The Health Care Complaints Commission (the Commission) commenced these proceedings against Dr Pincock. On 19 December 2024, the Tribunal determined the second stage of the proceedings: Health Care Complaints Commission v Pincock [2024] NSWCATOD 202. In those reasons for decision, the Tribunal ordered that parts of Dr Pincock's evidence and parts of the evidence of an expert witness, Dr Florida, not be published (the confidentiality orders).

2. On 29 January 2025, after the proceedings had been finalised, the Respondent's former wife applied for miscellaneous orders. She wanted the proceedings to be re-opened so that she could file fresh evidence. She contends that two paragraphs of the Respondent's statement to the Tribunal are incorrect and that if that evidence remains on the public record it will result in serious harm to her. She is also concerned that the unredacted reasons for decision may become available to the public. The orders Ms Pincock applied for were:

1) That proceedings 2023/00271367 be reopened.

2) That the statement of Ms Claudine Pincock dated 27 January 2025 be accepted for filing forthwith.

3) That Ms Claudine Pincock be provided with a copy of the unredacted copy of the Tribunal's decision published on 19 December 2024.

4) That access be granted to Ms Claudine Pincock to inspect the Court file or any document in which she and/or the children of the marriage are referred to, and in which the family law proceedings to which she is named as a party, are referred to.

5) That Ms Claudine Pincock be provided with a copy of any transcript of evidence in relation to the proceedings.

6) That Ms Claudine Pincock be granted twenty-eight days from the date access is granted to the file and any transcript of proceedings to identify and respond to any statement made about or against her, which is currently in evidence or was tendered or presented to the Tribunal.

7) That the Respondent thereafter correct any false or misleading information, which is currently in evidence or was tendered or presented to the Tribunal.

8) Any other orders the Tribunal thinks fit.

3. The Commission opposes orders 1, 2, 6 and 7. The Commission did not oppose orders 3, 4 and 5 but noted that if those orders were made, the Tribunal would have to vary the confidentiality orders. Mr Pincock adopted the Commission's submissions but opposed any application to vary the confidentiality orders.

4. I am satisfied that the issues for determination can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties by considering the submissions lodged with the Tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, s 50(2).

*Rest of the document and Footnotes can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/195649e468bf4be09e1a6382)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.