The case of Orr v Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman [2024] QCA 67 addressed an appeal by Andrew Jamie Orr, a registered health practitioner, against a decision to proceed with disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Health Ombudsman through the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). Orr contested the use of certain evidence against him, claiming it was unlawfully obtained through defective search warrants and notices, and thus argued that the Health Ombudsman's decision to refer the matter to QCAT was invalid. The court found that the tribunal did not have the authority to rule on the validity of the evidence used in the referral decision. This decision pivoted on the concept of a "collateral attack" on jurisdiction, meaning Orr sought to challenge the foundational legality of the proceedings in a way that was not direct or straightforward. The Supreme Court supported the earlier tribunal decision, emphasizing the structured processes and legal bounds within which administrative and tribunal review occurs, upholding the narrow pathway through which evidentiary challenges can be made in procedural contexts. The appeal was dismissed, leaving Orr to confront the disciplinary proceedings on their merits, separated from his claims about the evidence's acquisition.
top of page
bottom of page