A Queensland court has ruled that RACP comparability assessments of overseas-trained physicians cannot be judicially reviewed, ending a respiratory physician’s long-running legal dispute with the college.
The Queensland Supreme Court dismissed all claims brought by the Indian-trained doctor against the RACP, AHPRA, the Medical Board of Australia and Mackay Hospital and Health Service, finding the college’s assessments were made under its own by-laws rather than statute.
Justice Michael Copley found the RACP’s determinations about whether overseas-trained practitioners were comparable to Australian-trained specialists were “not either expressly or impliedly required or authorised” by the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.
“The Medical Board made decisions about registration. The College made recommendations,” he wrote.
The case arose after the RACP assessed the physician’s peer review performance at Mackay Base Hospital as unsatisfactory in July 2018, requiring him to complete 12 months of top-up training at a tertiary site followed by a further 12 months under peer review. The physician never completed that training.
After settling an industrial dispute with Mackay Hospital and Health Service and resigning in December 2018, the physician spent years pursuing multiple proceedings in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, the Federal Court and the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, all unsuccessfully.
The Federal Court had ruled against him in April 2025. His application to appeal that decision was dismissed two months later.
Justice Copley found that even had the 2018 suspension been reviewable, setting it aside “would have no practical effect” given the physician had resigned pursuant to a deed of settlement.
A 2023 letter from the acting chief executive of the Health Service, which the applicant argued reaffirmed earlier decisions, also failed to survive scrutiny. The court found the correspondence “does not evidence any decision at all,” as it conveyed only a preliminary view inviting the physician to respond.
The court also rejected the physician’s argument that submissions the RACP made in earlier tribunal and court proceedings were themselves reviewable decisions, finding submissions “do not confer, alter or otherwise affect legal rights.”
Justice Copley described the amended originating application as unclear and imprecise, noting it had failed to identify the date of any specific College decision beyond a broad sweep of “decisions made between 2015 and 2025.”
It was the fourth occasion the RACP had been required to respond to proceedings connected with decisions about the physician.
The judgement was handed down earlier in June [link here].