Throwing a Cat among the Pridgeon(s): The New South Wales Court of Appeal and the Public Interest Test under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW Journal of Law and Medicine Pub Date : 2022-12-01
Cameron Stewart, Christopher Rudge
{"title":"Throwing a Cat among the Pridgeon(s): The New South Wales Court of Appeal and the Public Interest Test under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.","authors":"Cameron Stewart,&nbsp;Christopher Rudge","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This section examines the 2022 decision of Pridgeon v Medical Council of New South Wales in the New South Wales Court of Appeal that has taken a fundamentally different view of the public interest test employed in immediate action hearings under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. The section starts by examining the case and then looks at the approach taken by subsequent decisions. It will argue that the decision is substantially at odds with earlier authorities from all around Australia and fails to understand properly the meaning and purpose of the test.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"29 4","pages":"1011-1025"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This section examines the 2022 decision of Pridgeon v Medical Council of New South Wales in the New South Wales Court of Appeal that has taken a fundamentally different view of the public interest test employed in immediate action hearings under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. The section starts by examining the case and then looks at the approach taken by subsequent decisions. It will argue that the decision is substantially at odds with earlier authorities from all around Australia and fails to understand properly the meaning and purpose of the test.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
把猫扔进监狱:新南威尔士州上诉法院和《卫生从业人员条例》国家法律下的公共利益测试。
本节审查新南威尔士州上诉法院对2022年Pridgeon诉新南威尔士州医学委员会一案的判决,该判决对根据《卫生从业人员条例》国家法律在立即行动听证会中采用的公共利益测试采取了根本不同的观点。本节首先检查案例,然后查看后续判决所采用的方法。它将辩称,这一决定与澳大利亚各地早前的权威机构存在本质上的分歧,未能正确理解测试的意义和目的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
63
期刊最新文献
Challenging Pandemic Law: From Vaccine Mandates to Judicial Review of Vaccine Approvals. Cystic Fibrosis and the Law: The Ramifications of New Treatments. Denial of Desire for Death in Dementia: Why Is Dementia Excluded from Australian Voluntary Assisted Dying Legislation? Informed Consent and the Duty to Warn: More than the Mere Provision of Information. Insight and the Capacity to Refuse Treatment with Electroconvulsive Therapy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1