Judge found no professional misconduct in doctor’s inadequate record‑keeping
The New Zealand Supreme Court has denied a periodontist’s request for leave to appeal following his unsuccessful attempts to secure name suppression in disciplinary proceedings arising from the treatment he provided during the COVID-19 lockdown in Auckland.
In this case, the applicant doctor faced a disciplinary charge alleging that he had breached pandemic-related treatment guidelines and had maintained insufficient records.
The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal rejected the claims for treatment guideline breaches. However, the tribunal affirmed the disciplinary charge concerning inadequate record‑keeping.
In 2023, the High Court set aside the tribunal’s finding and the resulting monetary penalty and costs orders. The High Court determined that the insufficient record‑keeping amounted to negligence and malpractice, but did not constitute professional misconduct.
Like the tribunal, the High Court denied the doctor’s application for permanent name suppression upon considering that:
The Court of Appeal dismissed the doctor’s name suppression appeal and saw no basis to disturb the denial of suppression.
Disagreeing with the High Court, the appeal court did not consider the “desirable” test in s 95(2) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 materially lower than the test for suppression in ordinary civil proceedings.
However, the appeal court concluded that the High Court’s error had favoured the doctor.
The Supreme Court declined the doctor’s application for leave to appeal.
To allow the doctor to prepare for publication, the Supreme Court suppressed the publication of his name, address, occupation, and identifying particulars until 2 p.m. on 11 November 2026.
The Supreme Court directed the doctor to pay costs of $4,850 to the respondent professional conduct committee.
The Supreme Court ruled that the case failed to satisfy the criteria for leave to appeal.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the doctor was:
Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no sufficiently arguable error in the Court of Appeal’s conclusion, no issue of general or public importance arising in this case, and no appearance of a miscarriage of justice in the civil sense.
In a case involving a barrister and solicitor found guilty of misconduct under s 7 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, the Supreme Court of New Zealand made a 29 October 2026 decision declining to extend the stay of his suspension to 29 January 2027.
In proceedings arising from a claim that a law firm provided negligent legal work, the Supreme Court issued a 27 October 2026 ruling denying leave to appeal against the judicial conduct commissioner’s decision in favour of the judges who ruled on two recall applications.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
