The judgement for Adams v Health Care Complaints Commission NSWSC 1212, heard on 4 July 2025, concerns a judicial review application by Charlie Armstrong Adams against the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC). Mr Adams was challenging the HCCC’s decision not to pursue a complaint he made against a dentist, Dr Jilin Cai, regarding treatment received on 2 November 2023. The core of Mr Adams’ complaint revolved around the dentist’s handling of his lower left wisdom tooth (T38), which he alleged was severely decayed and improperly treated, leading to its eventual extraction. The HCCC, after consulting with the Dental Council of NSW, decided not to take further action, concluding that while there might have been some shortcomings, the dentist’s conduct did not significantly depart from acceptable standards. The court ultimately dismissed Mr Adams’ application for judicial review and ordered him to pay the HCCC’s costs.
Background and the plaintiff’s claims
Mr Adams first saw the dentist on 26 May 2023 for pain in his upper left teeth. He later had two more teeth extracted, including the lower left wisdom tooth (T38) on 28 February 2024, which he described as “severely decayed” with “a very large hole”. He believed the dentist failed to identify these issues during his visit on 2 November 2023, leading to his ongoing pain and distress. Mr Adams also complained about the dentist’s “dismissive attitude” and lack of accountability. He sought his dental records, which were provided by the dentist, and the HCCC also provided him with discovery of documents. The HCCC consulted the Dental Council, which recommended “discontinue with comments”, noting that while the dentist’s examination might not have been thorough, especially regarding the condition of T38, it was uncertain and tricky to diagnose unseparated cracks in teeth. The Council advised the dentist to ensure his clinical examinations were thorough in the future. Mr Adams also made allegations of collusion, corruption, and discrimination against HCCC staff, but these were not pursued at the hearing. The HCCC notified Mr Adams of its decision on 13 August 2024, stating there was not a significant departure from acceptable standards requiring further action. After a review, the HCCC upheld its original decision on 8 October 2024.
The court’s decision and reasoning
The HCCC argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the judicial review application, citing the case of Hastwell v Health Care Complaints Commission [ NSWCA 22](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2021/22.html “View Case”). The HCCC contended that, similar to Hastwell, a complainant does not have a right to judicial review of the HCCC’s decision not to proceed with a complaint, as the statutory obligations are primarily owed to the health practitioner being complained about, not the complainant. The court agreed with this preliminary issue, finding that it had no jurisdiction to review the HCCC’s decision. However, the court proceeded to consider the plaintiff’s grounds for judicial review in the event it was wrong about jurisdiction.
Procedural unfairness and failure to consider evidence
Mr Adams argued that the HCCC failed to conduct a fair investigation, not adequately considering evidence like photographic evidence of a “black mark” on T38, which he believed indicated significant decay. He felt this omission demonstrated a lack of procedural fairness and a failure to consider key evidence. The HCCC argued that the Dental Council, as the peer authority, was best placed to assess technical proficiency. The court found that the HCCC’s review did address concerns about T38, acknowledging the complexities of diagnosis and that the dentist’s assertion about the tooth’s condition at the time of consultation was inaccurate. The court noted that the Dental Council had already recommended comments be given to the newly graduated dentist, indicating a recognised shortcoming. Therefore, the court dismissed these grounds, finding no denial of procedural fairness, failure to consider evidence, or breach of statutory obligations.
Neglect of public safety concerns
Mr Adams also claimed the HCCC neglected public safety concerns by not adequately addressing the potential harm to other patients if similar diagnostic failures occurred. The HCCC argued that the decision to provide comments to the dentist was reasonable and that there was no basis to assume the dentist posed a risk to public health. The court agreed that the HCCC’s decision to discontinue the action with comments to the dentist was reasonable, and the HCCC did not consider the dentist to be a risk to public health. This ground was also dismissed.
Inadequate reasons under s 28(8)(b) of the HCC Act
A new ground raised by Mr Adams was that the HCCC’s decision did not provide adequate reasons as required by s 28(8)(b) of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW). He argued that the HCCC’s references to photographs were unclear and that the decision did not properly address the issue of T38. The HCCC contended that inadequate reasons do not automatically equate to jurisdictional error. The court found that the HCCC’s review decision provided adequate reasons, explaining its reasoning in sufficient detail and addressing the plaintiff’s complaints. This ground was also dismissed.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the court dismissed Mr Adams’ application for judicial review, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. Even if it had jurisdiction, the court found that the plaintiff’s grounds for review were not made out. Mr Adams was ordered to pay the HCCC’s costs. You can read the full judgment here: [Adams v Health Care Complaints Commission NSWSC 1212](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2025/1212.html). For more simplified case summaries, check out NSW Supreme Court Cases.
Q&A
Is it illegal to complain about a healthcare provider?
No, it is not illegal to complain about a healthcare provider in Australia. You have the right to raise concerns about the care you have received.
What happens after I make a complaint to the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC)?
The HCCC assesses complaints. Depending on the nature of the complaint, they may investigate, attempt conciliation, or decide not to take further action. They are required to notify you of their decision and the reasons for it.
Can the HCCC refuse to investigate my complaint?
Yes, the HCCC can decide not to investigate or proceed with a complaint if they believe it is trivial, does not warrant investigation, or has been resolved.
Does the HCCC owe me, as the complainant, the same rights as the healthcare provider?
The court in this case found that while a healthcare provider is owed procedural fairness during a complaint process, a complainant’s rights are more limited. These generally include being informed that a complaint has been lodged and receiving notice of the steps taken, including the reasons for a decision not to proceed.
Can I take the HCCC’s decision to court for review?
The case suggests that judicial review of the HCCC’s decision not to proceed with a complaint may be limited. The court found it lacked jurisdiction to review the decision in this instance, citing precedent.
What is judicial review?
Judicial review is a process where a court examines the legality of a decision made by a public authority or tribunal. It does not rehear the case but looks for errors of law, such as a failure to follow procedures or a misinterpretation of the law.
What are the grounds for judicial review?
Common grounds include procedural unfairness, failure to consider relevant evidence, acting outside of legal powers (jurisdictional error), and making decisions based on irrelevant considerations.
What does “procedural fairness” mean in this context?
Procedural fairness means that a decision-making process is fair and unbiased. This can include giving a person an opportunity to present their case and ensuring decisions are made based on relevant information.
What if I disagree with the HCCC’s decision?
If you disagree with the HCCC’s decision, your options might be limited, as indicated by this case. You can request a review of the decision within the HCCC process. Further legal action, like judicial review, may be possible but can be complex and subject to jurisdictional limitations.
Can I access all the documents related to my complaint investigation?
While the HCCC may gather various documents, including responses from the healthcare provider, there are provisions in the law (like s 99A(2) of the HCC Act) that protect certain information from being compelled in legal proceedings, to encourage frankness. However, in this case, the HCCC chose to release some documents to assist the complainant.
What if the healthcare provider’s records are incomplete or inaccurate?
If you believe the records are inaccurate or incomplete, you should raise this with the HCCC as part of your complaint. The HCCC is expected to consider the evidence presented to them.
What is the role of the Dental Council of NSW?
The Dental Council of NSW is a statutory body that assesses complaints about dentists. The HCCC often consults with such professional bodies to get expert opinions on clinical matters.
Does the HCCC have to follow the Dental Council’s recommendation?
The HCCC consults with the Dental Council, and while they often adopt their recommendations, the final decision rests with the HCCC.
What is a “review decision”?
A review decision is a reconsideration of the HCCC’s initial decision, often prompted by the complainant’s request for a review.
What are costs in a court case?
Costs are the expenses incurred by the parties in a legal proceeding. Generally, the losing party is ordered to pay the winning party’s costs, although this can be discretionary in some cases.
Is bringing a case as a “public interest matter” always exempt from costs?
Not necessarily. While public interest can be a factor, the court in this case found that Mr Adams’ complaint did not amount to a matter of public interest for the purpose of costs, and he was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs.