Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 20 JANUARY 2021

Medical Board decision overturned on Review

Gilchrist Connell
Explore more from Gilchrist Connell

This specialist anaesthetist was successful in an application for review of a decision of the Medical Board of Australia.

AustraliaConsumer Protection
Alison Fitzgerald
Alison Fitzgerald
Madeleine Eaton
Madeleine Eaton
Author LinkedIn connections

Introduction

In the recent decision of the South Australia Civil Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) in Waleed Alkhazrajy v Medical Board of Australia an anaesthetist was successful in his application for review of a decision of the Medical Board of Australia that relevantly required him to undertake a course of education, following his administration of anaesthesia to his daughter for a minor surgical procedure.

Facts

Dr Alkhazrajy is a specialist anaesthetist and, in early 2019, he referred his daughter to a colleague, for consideration of surgery to treat a "trigger finger". The surgeon performed the surgery and Dr Alkhazrajy administered the anaesthetic. The surgery was clinically uneventful.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

When “Down Down” Wasn’t Really Down - Federal Court Rules Against Coles

In its judgement delivered on 14 May 2026, the Federal Court has found that Coles engaged in misleading conduct in relation to its long-running “Down Down” promotion, accepting the ACCC’s case that many advertised discounts were not genuine. The Court held that 13 of the 14 sample “Down Down” tickets examined in the hearing conveyed false or misleading price discount representations because the stated “was” price had not applied for a reasonable period before the promotion.
AustraliaConsumer Protection
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Article

The Scope Of A School’s Duty Of Care Revisited

An 11-year-old student suffered a back injury during a long jump trial at a school athletics carnival, leading to a significant Court of Appeal decision that clarifies schools' duty of care obligations. The case examines whether basic safety measures like adequate sand depth and regular pit maintenance constitute reasonable precautions that schools must take to protect students during sporting activities.
AustraliaConsumer Protection
Carroll & O'Dea
Carroll & O'Dea
Article

AFCA’S New Approach To General Insurance Claims Handling: GICOP Compliance May Not Be Enough

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority has published new guidance clarifying how insurers must handle claims, including strict timeframes and expanded compensation rules. Insurers now face potential liability beyond policy limits for unreasonable delays, and may be required to compensate claimants for non-financial losses. With storm season approaching and complaint volumes rising, these changes create significant operational and financial pressure on the insurance industry.
AustraliaInsurance
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

ASIC And APRA Corporate Plans 2026–27: What Regulated Entities Should Expect

APRA and ASIC have released their 2026–27 Corporate Plans, signalling more intensive supervision and enforcement, alongside targeted measures intended to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. Their priorities span operational resilience, cyber security, artificial intelligence, consumer protection, insurance, superannuation, market integrity and digital assets. For regulated entities, the plans provide a practical roadmap of the areas most likely to attract supervisory attention, information requests and, where deficiencies are identified, enforcement action.
AustraliaCorporate/Commercial Law
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

A $2 Million “sting”: First Civil Penalty For Breach Of The Duty Of Utmost Good Faith

The Federal Court has imposed a $2 million civil penalty on Hollard Insurance Partners for breaching the duty of utmost good faith in its handling of a home insurance claim. This landmark decision marks the first time an insurer has faced civil penalties under section 13(2A) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984, following sustained delays, inadequate expert engagement, and failures to properly assess storm damage that left policyholders in temporary accommodation for over three years.
AustraliaInsurance
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

ASIC Puts Motor Vehicle Premium Transparency Under The Spotlight

ASIC's Report 838 reveals significant transparency gaps in motor vehicle insurance premium communications, finding that renewal documents often fail to explain price changes adequately and that over 30% of consumers who contacted their insurer successfully negotiated lower premiums. The report establishes clear expectations for better practice in pricing disclosures and signals continued regulatory scrutiny of insurance pricing practices.
AustraliaInsurance
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

Workplace Investigations And Decision Makers: What Employers Can Learn From Totino v Metro Trains

The Full Court of the Federal Court has clarified critical procedural requirements for employers managing medical incapacity terminations and defending general protections claims. This landmark decision addresses when workplace relations advisers must give evidence in proceedings and whether show cause letters constitute unlawful threats under the Fair Work Act.
AustraliaEmployment and HR
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell