{"title":"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。","authors":"Cameron Stewart, 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":"{\"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, 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}","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}
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.
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.