When Justice Is Sidestepped: How the Tribunal Used a Permanent Prohibition Order to Avoid Addressing Judicial Misconduct
In the recent Solaris v Health Care Complaints Commission case, a troubling pattern has emerged showing how procedural manouvers can effectively sidestep serious allegations of judicial misconduct and bias. At the heart of the controversy lies the conduct of member Balla, a Principal Member of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, whose alleged bias and procedural failings have raised profound concerns about fairness and justice.
The Strategy: Waiting for the PPO
The Tribunal originally supported an Interim Prohibition Order (IPO), which was subsequently challenged by an internal appeal alleging bias, procedural unfairness, and misconduct—particularly focusing on member Balla’s conduct. However, instead of addressing these serious claims head-on, the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) issued a Permanent Prohibition Order (PPO) based on the very IPO findings that the internal appeal challenged.
This timing wasn’t accidental. By waiting for the PPO to be put in place, the Tribunal and HCCC effectively avoided a substantive review of the internal appeal. The appeal was dismissed as “moot,” with the reasoning that since the PPO superseded the IPO, there was no practical purpose in hearing the appeal. In essence, the Tribunal used the PPO as a procedural shield to prevent any real scrutiny of member Balla’s alleged misconduct.
Why This Is Unfair
This tactic raises serious questions about the integrity of the judicial process. The PPO relied heavily on findings made by members including Balla, yet when those findings were contested through the internal appeal, the same Commission argued there was no utility in addressing them further. This contradictory stance undermines the principles of natural justice, transparency, and accountability.
Moreover, the refusal to publish the internal appeal findings—even five months after the decision—furthers this opaque process, leaving affected parties and the public in the dark. The delay and concealment compound the prejudice felt by the applicant, who has endured significant emotional, financial, and reputational harm through what appears to be a fundamentally unfair process.
What Does This Mean for Accountability?
By relying on procedural technicalities like the “moot” doctrine and PPO timing, the Tribunal risks allowing serious allegations of bias and misconduct to go unchecked. Member Balla’s conduct, despite being at the centre of the appeal, remains unaddressed in any meaningful way. This sets a dangerous precedent, where procedural expediency can override the quest for justice and fairness.
Moving Forward
For applicants and observers, this case highlights the challenges faced when internal appeal processes fail to deliver a fair hearing. It underscores the need for mechanisms that ensure transparency and hold judicial members accountable for their conduct, rather than allowing them to “get away” with it through procedural obfuscation.
As the struggle for fairness continues, it is vital that formal complaint avenues outside the internal appeal system are clearly accessible and effective. Only through such measures can confidence in the justice system be restored and the principles of natural justice upheld.
This blog post calls attention to the concerning use of the PPO timing as a shield against scrutiny, the resulting unfairness, and the urgent need for accountability in the tribunal system.