Windsor v Health Care Complaints Commission (No 2)

THE COURT: By Notice of Motion filed on 11 November 2019 Dr Gina Windsor (“the appellant”) seeks expedition of her appeal against a decision of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“NCAT”) of 1 October 2019 cancelling her registration as a general practitioner ([2019] NSWCATOD 149). She also seeks a stay of the Tribunal’s orders pending disposition of her appeal. In another judgment in this appeal delivered at the same time as this judgment (Windsor v Health Care Complaints Commission (No 1) [2020] NSWCA 16) this Court gave reasons for dismissing a Notice of Motion filed by Mr Neil Windsor seeking to represent the appellant at the hearing of her Notice of Motion described above.

As result of the Court’s refusal to allow Mr Windsor to appear for the appellant on her Motion, there was no appearance for the appellant when her Motion was called on for hearing. There is no doubt that the appellant was aware of the hearing date as she was present when it was fixed by the Registrar. As well, her knowledge of it was confirmed by a letter dated 12 February 2020 that she sent to the Court, without leave, subsequent to the hearing. As the first respondent requested the Court to proceed to deal with the Motion, the Court reserved its judgment with a view to basing its decision on the written materials before the Court.

Turning first to the claim for expedition, the Court notes that an early hearing date of 30 April 2020 has already been allocated for the appeal. Nothing has been put on behalf of the appellant that would justify any greater expedition being given to the hearing of the appeal. Certainly, there is an operative order of NCAT cancelling the appellant’s registration as a general practitioner but she has not proffered any evidence or argument identifying any prejudice that she suffers as a result of that order, nor has she demonstrated that she has at least an arguable case on appeal. Her Notice of Appeal filed on 26 November 2019 is 73 pages in length and contains extensive submissions. The Court has not however been able to discern in it any sensible argument in support of the appeal. Instead the Notice contains what appears to be irrelevant and at times scandalous material.

Whilst it is unnecessary for an applicant for a stay to establish special or exceptional circumstances, the applicant must demonstrate “a reason or an appropriate case to warrant the exercise of discretion in his [or her] favour” (Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685 at 694). No such reason or case has been demonstrated.

For these reasons, the appellant’s Notice of Motion seeking expedition and a stay of the decision below is dismissed with costs.