PHARMACY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA and TEH [2025] WASAT 30

Catchwords:
Vocational regulation – Pharmacist – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct over a seven-year period – Pharmacist made false declarations about recency of practice when he renewed his registration – Whether Pharmacist made false declaration about having done a CPD plan because his plan was not written – No requirement for CPD plan to be in writing – Factors relevant to penalty – Disciplinary sanction imposed

[2025] WASAT 30
Page 1
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT : HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION NATIONAL LAW (WA) ACT 2010 (WA)
CITATION : PHARMACY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA and TEH [2025] WASAT 30
MEMBER : PRESIDENT GLANCY
DR M EVANS-BONNER, SENIOR MEMBER
MS E PERRELLA, SESSIONAL MEMBER
HEARD : 11 OCTOBER 2024
DELIVERED : 11 APRIL 2025
FILE NO/S : VR 69 of 2023
BETWEEN : PHARMACY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
ZHI-REN TEH
Respondent
Catchwords:
Vocational regulation – Pharmacist – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct over a seven-year period – Pharmacist made false declarations about recency of practice when he renewed his registration – Whether Pharmacist made false declaration about having done a CPD plan because his plan was not written – No requirement for CPD plan to be in writing – Factors relevant to penalty – Disciplinary sanction imposed
[2025] WASAT 30
Page 2
Legislation:
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010 (WA) (repealed), Sch
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld)
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Application Act 2024 (WA), s 5(1), s 5(2), s 38, s 42, s 42(2), s 42(3)
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, s 3(2)(a), s 3A(1), s 5, s 12(1), s 35(1)(c), s 38, s 38(1)(e), s 39, s 40(1), s 41, s 109(1), s 109(1)(a)(ii), s 109(1)(a)(iii), s 193(1)(a)(i), s 196(1)(b)(ii), s 196(1)(iii), s 196(2), s 196(3), s 196(4), s 207
Pharmacy Act 2010 (WA), s 4, s 46(1)(c)(i), s 46(2), s 46(3), s 53, s 54, s 54(1)(a), s 54(1)(c), s 54(2)
Result:
Practitioner reprimanded
Practitioner’s registration as a pharmacist cancelled
Practitioner disqualified from applying for registration as a pharmacist for eighteen (18) months
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant
:
Mr EM Heenan SC & Mr T de Bes
Respondent
:
Ms R Young SC & Mr J Birch
Solicitors:
Applicant
:
Perth Legal Pty Ltd
Respondent
:
Meridian Lawyers (Perth)
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Health Ombudsman v Park [2021] QCAT 309
Hegde v Pharmacy Board of Australia [2020] WASC 383
Hegde v Pharmacy Board of Australia [2023] WASAT 109
Hegde v Pharmacy Board of Australia [No 2] [2020] WASC 384
[2025] WASAT 30
Page 3
Medical Board of Australia and Lal [2017] WASAT 23
Medical Board of Australia and Singh [2017] WASAT 33 (S)
Medical Board of Australia v Putha [2014] QCAT 159
Medical Board of Australia v Win (Review and Regulation) (Amended) [2015] VCAT 1289
Medical Board of Western Australia and Bham [2006] WASAT 190
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Joy Jones VR 1 of 2019
Nursing and Midwifery Board v Kindl (Review and Regulation) [2023] VCAT 981
Pharmacy Board of Australia and Hegde [2020] WASAT 89
Psychologists Registration Board of Victoria v Ferriere (2000) PRBD (Vic) 3
Psychology Board of Australia and Fawcett [2023] WASAT 86
Psychology Board of Australia v Elzo (Review and Regulation) [2020] VCAT 345
[2025] WASAT 30
Page 4
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction
1
The Pharmacy Board of Australia (variously the Applicant or the Board) referred this matter to the Tribunal pursuant to s 193(1)(a)(i) of the now repealed Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (National Law) which was contained in the Schedule to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010 (WA) (2010 Act). It did so on the basis that it reasonably believed that the practitioner, Zhi-Ren Teh (Practitioner), behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
2
The Practitioner accepts that he has engaged in conduct which can be characterised as professional misconduct; that conduct being, in effect, lying on his applications for renewal of his registration (Renewal Applications) for the years 2011 to 2017 when he declared that he met the recency of practice requirements despite knowing, on each occasion, that he did not meet those requirements (Agreed Misconduct).
3
The Applicant also alleges that the Practitioner engaged in conduct which can be characterised as professional misconduct when, on his applications for registration for the registration periods ending December 2018 and December 2019, he declared that he had planned his continuing professional development (CPD) in relation to his scope of practice, as required by the Board’s CPD Standard: Pharmacy Board of Australia, Registration Standard: Continuing Professional Development dated 1 December 2015 (CPD Standard).1 The Applicant says this was a false declaration because, although the Practitioner completed the CPD which was required for each of the CPD years, he did not prepare a written CPD plan. The Practitioner accepts that he did not prepare a written CPD plan but does not accept that the CPD Standard required him to prepare a written CPD plan. The Practitioner says that as he had prepared a plan, albeit unwritten, his declaration was not false. For convenience, we will refer to this as the Disputed Misconduct.
4
The parties agree that whether the CPD Standard required the formation of a written CPD plan and whether the declaration provided by the Practitioner about that issue was false will not make a difference to the penalty which is to be imposed on the Practitioner. That is, even
1 Exhibit 1.6, Applicant’s Documents for Hearing dated 17 September 2024 (AD), page 67.
[2025] WASAT 30
Page 5
if we find that he did make a false declaration about meeting the CPD
Standard, it will not increase the penalty to be imposed on the Practitioner beyond that which is to be imposed as a result of the Agreed Misconduct. Nevertheless, whether the Practitioner committed two further instances of professional misconduct is an issue between the parties that we must determine.
5
The parties both agree that the Practitioner’s Agreed Misconduct is serious but do not agree as to the penalty which should be imposed. The Applicant submits that the Practitioner should be reprimanded, that his registration must be cancelled, and that he must be disqualified from reapplying for registration for a period of time. The Applicant asserts a period of two years disqualification is appropriate having regard to the penalties imposed in other cases and considering the Practitioner’s personal circumstances. The Applicant also seeks an order that the Practitioner pay its costs.
6
The Practitioner submits that a penalty of less than cancellation or suspension of his registration is appropriate for various reasons, including the fact that he will suffer significant financial losses if his registration is cancelled or suspended. This is because, the Practitioner submits, the effect of the Pharmacy Act 2010 (WA) (Pharmacy Act) is that he will have to sell, in what his counsel referred to as a ‘fire sale’, the two pharmacies which he currently owns. The Practitioner submits that such a consequence would amount to punishment. The Practitioner submits that the appropriate penalty ‘is a reprimand and a fine’ or the imposition of conditions upon his registration.2
The issues
7
The issues which arise in these proceedings are:

1. Did the Practitioner provide false information and make a false declaration in his 2018 and 2019 Renewal Applications by:
   a. stating that he had planned his CPD as required by the Board’s CPD Standard; and
   b. declaring that he would comply with all relevant legislation, registration standards, codes and guidelines; and
   2 ts 95.
   [2025] WASAT 30
   Page 6
   c. declaring that the details given in his Renewal Applications were true and complete?
2. What is the appropriate penalty to be imposed for the Agreed Misconduct?
3. What is the appropriate order as to costs?
   Outcome
   8
   For the reasons which we set out below we have come to the view that, with respect to the Disputed Misconduct, there was no requirement that the Practitioner prepare a written CPD plan and consequently issue 1 is to be answered as follows:
   1a. no;
   1b. no; and
   1c. no.
   9
   For the reason set out below we have also come to the view that the appropriate penalty to be imposed for the Agreed Misconduct is a reprimand, the cancellation of the Practitioner’s registration, and disqualification from reapplying for registration for a period of eighteen (18) months.
   10
   The parties submitted, and we agree, that the issue of costs is more appropriately determined after the issues in relation to CPD requirements and penalty are determined. Therefore, we will make an order that any party wishing to make an application for costs is to do so within 28 days of the publication of the orders (which we will make consequent upon this decision), together with a minute setting out the orders they seek programming the costs application for hearing.
   11
   Before turning to the issues, we record that we generally regarded the Practitioner to have been honest in giving his evidence before us. Despite that, we do not accept all of his evidence. In particular and for reasons which we set out later in the reasons, we do not accept all of the Practitioner’s evidence as to the losses that he will suffer should his registration as a pharmacist be cancelled or suspended. That was not because we regarded his evidence as untruthful, but rather because we find that he equated losses which might be suffered by companies which he established and through which the pharmacies were operated as personal losses, whereas that was not necessarily the case when
   [2025] WASAT 30
   Page 7
   regard was had to the documents. Additionally, we were not satisfied
   as to his evidence as to the extent of the loss that might be suffered if the pharmacies had to be sold quickly. We set out the specific findings we make about those issues where relevant elsewhere in these reasons.
   The applicable legislation
   12
   The 2010 Act was repealed by s 38 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Application Act 2024 (WA) (WA Application Act) on 15 May 2024.
   13
   By s 5(2) of the WA Application Act, the National Law applies as a law of the State as if it were an Act. The National Law is an amended version of that contained in the Schedule to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld): s 5(1), WA Application Act.
   14
   This amended version of the National Law operates as a continuation of the 2010 Act: s 42 WA Application Act. Thus, although this referral was made under the 2010 Act, the proceeding is taken to have been commenced under the corresponding version of the new law, and this matter must be dealt with under the new law as if it arose under the new law: s 42(2) and s 42(3), WA Application Act.
   15
   Section 196 of the National Law sets out the range of sanctions that may be imposed on a health practitioner by a ‘responsible tribunal’. This Tribunal is the ‘responsible tribunal’ for Western Australia for the purposes of the National Law: s 5 National Law. The sanctions include making a finding that a practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct (s 196(1)(b)(ii) National Law) or which constitutes ‘professional misconduct’ (s 196(1)(b)(iii) National Law).
   16
   The parties agree that the Practitioner’s Agreed Misconduct is properly characterised as ‘professional misconduct’. That expression is defined in s 5 of the National Law as follows:
   (a) unprofessional conduct by the practitioner that amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and
   (b) more than one instance of unprofessional conduct that, when considered together, amounts to conduct that is substantially
   [2025] WASAT 30
   Page 8
   below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and
   (c) conduct of the practitioner, whether occurring in connection with the practice of the of the health practitioner’s profession or not, that is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession;
   17
   Following a finding that a practitioner has engaged in professional misconduct, s 196(2) of the National Law provides that the Tribunal may decide to do one or more of the following:
   (a) caution or reprimand the practitioner;
   (b) impose a condition on the practitioner’s registration, including, for example —
   (i) a condition requiring the practitioner to complete specified further education or training, or to undergo counselling, within a specified period; or
   (ii) a condition requiring the practitioner to undertake a specified period of supervised practice; or
   (iii) a condition requiring the practitioner to do, or refrain from doing, something in connection with the practitioner’s practice; or
   (iv) a condition requiring the practitioner to manage the practitioners practice in a specified way; or
   (v) a condition requiring the practitioner to report to a specified person at specified times about the practitioner’s practice; or
   (vi) a condition requiring the practitioner not to employ, engage or recommend a specified person, or class of persons,
   (c) require the practitioner to pay a fine of not more than $30,000 to the National Board that registers the practitioner;
   (d) suspend the practitioner’s registration for a specified period;
   (e) cancel the practitioner’s registration.
   18
   If a condition is imposed on the Practitioner’s registration, the Tribunal must also decide a review period for the condition: s 196(3) National Law.
   [2025] WASAT 30
   Page 9
   19
   Section 196(4) further provides that if the Respondent’s registration is cancelled, the Tribunal may also decide to either:
   (a) disqualify the person from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a specified period;
   (b) prohibit the person, either permanently or for a stated period, from doing either or both of the following —
   (i) providing any health service or a specified health service;
   (ii) using any title or a specified title.
   (c) impose restrictions, either permanently or for a stated period, on the provision of any health service or a specified health service by the person.
   20
   Section 4 of the National Law provides that an entity that has functions under the National Law is to exercise those functions having regard to the objectives and guiding principles in s 3 and s 3A.
   21
   The following objective in s 3(2)(a) of the National Law is relevant:
   to provide for the protection of the public by ensuring that only health practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practise in a competent and ethical manner are registered;
   22
   Further, the main guiding principle in s 3A(1) is relevant. That section provides:
   The main guiding principle of the national registration and accreditation scheme is that the following are paramount –
   (a) protection of the public;
   (b) public confidence in the safety of services provided by registered health practitioners and students.
   Issue 1 – Did the Practitioner provide false information and make a false declaration in his 2018 and 2019 Renewal Applications?
   23
   To determine this issue, we must consider whether the Practitioner was required to prepare a written CPD plan under the National Law, and the relevant Standards and/or Guidelines which we will outline below.
   [2025] WASAT 30
   Page 10
   National Law, Standards and Guidelines
   24
   Pursuant to s 12(1) of the National Law, the Ministerial Council may approve a registration standard about the registration, or renewal or registration, of persons in a health profession.
   25
   One of the functions of the Applicant as a National Board is to develop registration standards and codes and guidelines for the profession: s 35(1)(c) National Law. Section 38 of the National Law provides that a National Board must develop and recommend to the Ministerial Council registration standards about matters which, relevantly include the requirements in relation to the nature, extent, period and recency of any previous practice of the profession by applicants for registration in the profession: s 38(1)(e) National Law.
   26
   Section 39 of the National Law provides that:
   A National Board may develop and approve codes and guidelines –
   (a) to provide guidance to the health practitioners in registers; and
   (b) about other matters relevant to the exercise of its functions.
   27
   Where it develops a registration standard or a code or guideline, the National Board must ensure that there is wide-ranging consultation about its contents: s 40(1) National Law.
   28
   Section 41 of the National Law deals with the use of registration standards, codes and guidelines in disciplinary proceedings. In summary, it provides that these are admissible in proceedings against a health practitioner under the National Law as evidence of what constitutes appropriate professional conduct or practices for that profession.
   29
   Relevantly to Issue 1, pursuant to s 109(1) of the National Law, a pharmacist seeking to renew their registration must declare that they have met the CPD requirements required by an approved registration standard: s 109(1)(a)(iii) National Law. As we have identified above, the relevant standard is the CPD Standard.
   30
   Further, pursuant to s 109(1)(a)(ii) of the National Law, a pharmacist seeking to renew their registration must also declare whether they have met the recency of practice requirement: s 109(1)(a)(ii) National Law. The relevant standards concerning recency of practice requirements for the period in question in this
   [2025] WASAT 30
   Page 11
   matter are the
   Pharmacy Board of Australia, Recency of Practice Registration Standard dated 1 July 2010 (2010 Recency Standard) and the Pharmacy Board of Australia, Registration Standard: Recency of Practice dated 1 December 2015 (2015 Recency Standard). Those Standards are relevant to Issue 2.
   CPD Standard
   31
   The CPD Standard provides that it applies to all applicants for general registration and all registered pharmacists, including those changing registration type, but that it does not apply to pharmacists with non-practising registration, or to students.3
   32
   It also provides as follows:
   To meet this registration standard you must:
4. Plan your CPD on an annual basis by:
   a. reflecting on the role you perform and the services you provide (i.e. your scope of practice), and any proposed changes to your practice, against the Current National Competency Standards Framework for Pharmacists in Australia and identify relevant competencies
   b. identifying professional development needs relevant to these identified competencies, and
   c. identifying suitable CPD activities which address your professional development needs.
5. Complete CPD activities that have an aggregate value of 40 or more CPD credits during each 12-month CPD period ending 30 September, which:
   a. consist of at least 20 CPD credits from Group 2 and/or Group 3 activities (that is, a maximum of 20 CPD credits from Group 1 activities)
   b. consist of a range of types of activities…
   c. …
   d. …
   e. are relevant to your scope of practice, and
   3 Exhibit 1.6, page 2 of CPD Standard, AD page 68, hearing bundle (HB) page 93.
   [2025] WASAT 30
   Page 12
   f. address your professional development needs, upon reflection of how the activity has impacted your practice.
   33
   The CPD Standard also informs practitioners that compliance with the CPD Standard may be audited from time to time and may also be checked if the Board receives a notification about the practitioner.4
   Guidelines
   34
   The Pharmacy Board of Australia, Guidelines on Continuing Professional Development (CPD Guidelines) are dated 1 December 2015.
   35
   In the Registration Standard, under the heading ‘Guidelines on continuing professional development for pharmacists and frequently asked questions’ is the following statement:5
   The Board’s Guidelines on continuing professional development provide more information about how to meet this standard. You are expected to understand and apply these guidelines together with their registration standard.
   36
   Under the heading ‘Introduction’ the CPD Guidelines state:6
   These guidelines:
   a. supplement the requirements set out in the Board’s Registration Standard: Continuing professional development (CPD Standard)
   b. supplement the requirements set out in the National Law at sections 128 and 109(1)(iii) in relation to pharmacists’ obligations to undertake continuing professional development (CPD) and to advise the Board when applying for renewal of registration that the Board’s CPD requirements have been met, and
   c. provide guidance to pharmacists in relation to a matter of professional practice, not set down in the legislation or a registration standard, which under section 41 of the National Law, can be used in disciplinary proceedings under the National Law as evidence of what constitutes appropriate professional conduct or practice for pharmacists.
   37
   Under the heading ‘Who needs to use these guidelines’ it is stated:7
   4 Exhibit 1.6, page 3, AD page 69, AD, HB page 94.
   5 Exhibit 1.6, page 3, AD page 69, HB page 94.
   6 Exhibit 1.7, page 3, AD page 73, HB page 98.
   [2025] WASAT 30
   Page 13
   These guidelines were developed to provide guidance to applicants for general registration and all registered pharmacists, including those changing registration type.
   They do not apply to pharmacists with non-practising registration or to students.
   38
   Under the heading ‘What happens if I do not comply with these guidelines?’ it is stated:8
   Pharmacists must comply with all legislation relevant to the practice of pharmacy in the jurisdiction where the practice occurs. Additionally, pharmacists are expected to be aware of and comply with the profession’s standards and guidelines (including any other standards or guidelines referred to in those documents), as relevant to their scope of practice and type of registration. …
   Non-compliance with these guidelines and pharmacy practice standards and guidelines may be notified to the Board for appropriate action under the National Law. Under section 41 of the National Law, these guidelines can be used in disciplinary proceedings under the National Law or law of a co-regulatory jurisdiction as evidence of what constitutes appropriate professional conduct or practice for pharmacists. When considering notifications (complaints) against pharmacists, the Board will give consideration to whether a breach of these guidelines has taken place. The Board will also have regard to the legislation and practice standards and guidelines relevant to pharmacy practice.
   39
   Item 1 of the CPD Guidelines is headed ‘Developing a continuing professional development plan and undertaking self-directed professional development’.9 That Item provides as follows:
   Pharmacists should review the current National Competency Standards Framework for Pharmacists in Australia to identify the competencies relevant to the role they perform and services they provide (i.e. their scope of practice) and determine their professional development needs. They should set out a clear plan of activities they intend to undertake to meet their identified professional development needs.
   During the CPD period, pharmacists are encouraged to regularly review and amend if required, their continuing professional development plan (CPD plan) to ensure that their needs are being met and to incorporate additional needs which evolve. In addition to undertaking planned CPD activities as set out in the CPD plan, pharmacists may also undertake CPD activities that are unplanned …
   7 Exhibit 1.7 page 3, AD page 73, HB page 98.
   8 Exhibit 1.7 page 3, AD page 73, HB page 98.
   9 Exhibit 1.7 page 4, AD page 74, HB page 99.
   [2025] WASAT 30
   Page 14
   Maintaining an adequate record of activities enables pharmacists to review whether their chosen self-directed professional development activities have met their needs as outlined on their CPD plan.
   Pharmacists should ensure that they meet the Board’s CPD standard by:

• developing and maintaining their CPD plan
• selecting appropriate CPD activities to address the competencies identified in the CPD plan which are relevant to their scope of practice
• maintaining detailed records of all activities undertaken, and
• ensuring that these records can be verified.
  (Emphasis added)
  40
  Item 4 of the CPD Guidelines provides as follows:10
  Records of CPD undertaken
  Maintaining detailed and verifiable records for all CPD undertaken is the pharmacist’s responsibility.
  Records of CPD activity undertaken during the previous three full CPD periods should be kept, and must include details under all fields specified by the Board.
  Records maintained by participants or by providers of CPD on behalf of participants must include details of CPD activities under the following fields when submitted by pharmacists who are audited by the Board.
  …
  Pharmacists may also be required to provide evidence of:
• their CPD plan that demonstrates the relevance of CPD activities undertaken to their scope of practice; and
• participation in CPD activities.
  (Emphasis added)
  41
  The CPD Guidelines define a ‘CPD plan’ as follows:11
  a pharmacist’s individual plan of activities that they intend to undertake during a CPD period. It is devised through self-reflection against the
  10 Exhibit 1.7 page 5, AD page 75, HB page 100.
  11 Exhibit 1.7 page 7, AD page 77, HB page 102.
  [2025] WASAT 30
  Page 15
  National Competency Standards Framework for Pharmacists in Australia, and identification of knowledge gaps to be addressed though CPD. A CPD plan should be regularly reviewed and amended, for example to include additional needs as they arise, to ensure that professional development needs are being met.
  42
  Nowhere in the CPD Guidelines is it specifically stated, even in the definition of a CPD plan, that a CPD plan must be a written document.
  43
  The words ‘set out a clear plan of activities’ in CPD Guidelines Item 1 are suggestive of a CPD plan needing to be in writing. But, in our view it does not preclude the possibility that a person could have a clear plan set out in their mind without committing it to writing.
  44
  The Practitioner’s position that a CPD plan is not required to be in writing is reinforced by the fact that the requirement to maintain detailed records in CPD Guidelines Items 1 and 4 refer only to records of all activities undertaken and not to those activities having to be recorded in writing.
  Resolution
  45
  In our view, it is conceivable that a CPD plan could be reviewed and amended even if the CPD plan was not a written document. For example, at the start of the CPD year an individual could sit at their computer and consider their CPD needs and book all of the coming year’s CPD activities which they intend to undertake. In that case they will have made a plan. The person’s scope of employment might change several months into the CPD year, and that person may reconsider their CPD needs and cancel some of the activities which were booked earlier and instead book to attend other, now more relevant, CPD activities. In doing so it could not be said that the person had not made and reviewed and amended their CPD plan even if the plan itself had not been committed to writing.
  46
  Only that part of CPD Guidelines Item 4, which states that pharmacists may be required to provide evidence of their CPD plan that demonstrates the relevance of CPD activities to their scope of practice, might lead to the view that the CPD plan should be in writing. However, the fact that a person might be required to provide evidence of their CPD plan that demonstrates the relevance of the CPD undertaken to their scope of practice, does not, in our view, mandate that the CPD plan be retained in writing. The evidence might take other forms. By way of examples, we consider that the evidence of a
  [2025] WASAT 30
  Page 16
  CPD plan might be a statutory declaration, produced after the audit is
  commenced, identifying for the Board why particular CPD activities undertaken were relevant to the practitioner’s scope of practice. It might also be a copy of diary entries showing that a practitioner has scheduled attendance at CPD events through the relevant year.
  47
  In conclusion, we do not consider that the CPD Guidelines mandate that a CPD plan be a written document, although clearly maintaining such a plan in writing would be good practice.
  48
  If we are wrong about that conclusion, we also conclude that the CPD Guidelines cannot mandate how compliance with the CPD Standard is to occur. The purpose of CPD Guidelines is, as their name suggests, to provide guidance to practitioners, through elaboration and examples, of how the Standards, which are binding, can be met. They are, as s 41 of the National Law provides, able to be considered by the Tribunal in determining whether a practitioner has met the relevant standards expected of members of the profession. However, a breach of the CPD Guidelines does not, of itself, amount to a breach of the relevant CPD Standard.
  49
  It follows from that conclusion that we do not find that the Board has made out its allegation that the Practitioner engaged in either unprofessional conduct or professional misconduct by providing false information and making a false declaration in his 2018 and 2019 Renewal Applications.
  Issue 2: Penalty
  50
  We turn next to determining the penalty to be imposed for the Agreed Misconduct.
  Principles
  51
  The principles which apply to the imposition of a penalty under the National Law were not in dispute. They were recently restated by the Tribunal in Psychology Board of Australia and Fawcett [2023] WASAT 86 at [52] – [56]. They can be summarised as follows:

1. The purpose of disciplinary proceedings is the protection of the public and not the punishment of the practitioner.
2. The protection of the public is achieved by making orders which prevent a person who is unfit to practise from practising
   [2025] WASAT 30
   Page 17
   and by making orders which seek to maintain proper professional standards.
3. The protection of the public has various dimensions. They include:
   a. the need to protect the public from the practitioner’s conduct;
   b. the need to deter the practitioner from repeating the conduct in the future (that is, specific deterrence); and
   c. the need to maintain public confidence in the profession by reinforcing the high standards required of practitioners more generally and denouncing transgressions for the purpose of deterring others from engaging in similar conduct (that is, general deterrence).
4. Because the purpose of disciplinary proceedings is the protection of the public, the impact that an appropriate penalty will have on the practitioner and any resulting personal hardship to the practitioner, are secondary considerations.
5. The appropriate sanction is to be considered at the time it is imposed, rather than by reference to the date of the conduct.
6. In some cases, a global penalty may be appropriate as an alternative to individual penalties for each instance of misconduct. A global penalty will generally be imposed in cases where the facts of the case are inextricably woven together or where the penalty for a less serious transgression is subsumed by the penalty for a more serious transgression.
7. The Tribunal is exercising a discretion when it is determining the appropriate penalty. This involves weighing up of factors including the purpose of the disciplinary proceedings being to protect the public, the facts of the case, the penalties imposed in previous cases similar to the case before the Tribunal, personal and general deterrence, the practitioner’s personal circumstances and any mitigating factors.
   [2025] WASAT 30
   Page 18
   Considerations relevant to the determination of penalty
   52
   In Medical Board of Australia and Singh [2017] WASAT 33 (S) at [30], the Tribunal identified 12 matters which may require consideration in the determination of penalty. They were:
8. Is there a need to protect the public against further misconduct by the practitioner?
9. Is there a need to protect the public through the deterrence of other practitioners from similar conduct?
10. Is there a need to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession by reinforcing high professional standards and denouncing transgressions, even if there is no need to deter the practitioner from repeating the conduct?
11. In cases involving misleading conduct, including dishonesty, can the public and fellow practitioners place reliance on the word of the practitioner in the future?
12. Has the practitioner breached any Act, Regulation, Guideline or Code of Conduct issued by the relevant professional body, and if so, did the practitioner do so knowingly?
13. Did the practitioner’s conduct demonstrate incompetence, and if so, to what level?
14. Was the conduct isolated, such that the Tribunal can be satisfied of the practitioner’s worthiness or reliability in the future?
15. The practitioner’s disciplinary history.
16. Has the practitioner demonstrated insight into the conduct and remorse for it? If not, does the practitioner thereby demonstrate that they pose a risk to the community in the future?
17. Does the practitioner have any special skills which it is desirable to make available to the public notwithstanding the misconduct?
18. The practitioner’s personal circumstances at the time of their conduct and at the time of imposing the penalty, although these are necessarily secondary to the protection of the public and the maintenance of proper standards.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 19
19. Any other matters relevant to the practitioner’s fitness to practise, or which may be regarded as aggravating the conduct or mitigating its seriousness, although these are of less significance than in the criminal process because of the protective purpose of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
    53
    While those matters are not exhaustive, and there is some overlap between them, they are a useful framework for considering the circumstances relevant to the determination of the appropriate penalty in this case. We therefore turn next to evaluating those matters as they apply to the Practitioner.
    Is there a need to protect the public from further conduct of this kind by the Practitioner?
    54
    The Practitioner engaged in the same dishonest conduct on seven separate occasions over seven years in order to ensure his registration was renewed. He did not self-report the conduct.
    55
    The Practitioner’s evidence, which we accept, was that his petrol station businesses were experiencing some instability in approximately late 2015 or 2016 because his franchisor had been ‘forcibly’ taking back franchise businesses from other franchisees. He therefore had to consider the options available to him by which he could earn an income to support his family.12 He said he determined that the only viable option was to return to pharmacy which he saw as a stable avenue for providing for his family.13 His evidence was that his understanding at the time was that he could not own a pharmacy without being registered as a pharmacist and that he could not be registered without meeting the recency of practice requirements. Accordingly, he decided that he had no option but to falsely declare in his Renewal Application at that time that he had met that requirement when he knew that he had not.14 However, it is unclear to us as to why he made the false declarations in 2011 through to 2014, and he was not asked about that period at the hearing. We infer that it was to maintain the option of working as a pharmacist.
    56
    When asked how he felt now about making the false declarations, the Practitioner gave evidence that he was ’embarrassed, remorseful’. The Practitioner further stated, ‘I shouldn’t have been so stupid.
    12 ts 46.
    13 ts 46 – 47.
    14 ts 45 – 47.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 20
    I
    shouldn’t have been so ignorant’.15 We accept that Practitioner’s evidence and we find that he is now sorry, remorseful and embarrassed about his professional misconduct.
    57
    The Practitioner’s evidence was that when he recommenced working in his pharmacies in August 2017, he did not put the public at risk as a result of his misconduct because he did not work as a pharmacist, choosing instead to work as a dispensary technician or a pharmacy assistant until he had undertaken sufficient CPD activities and supervised work in the pharmacies to be able to work safely as a pharmacist.16 The Practitioner also gave evidence that he has explained to his colleagues and clients that he is in the process of being disciplined for his professional misconduct.17
    58
    Accordingly, while it remains necessary to impose a penalty which will protect the public from further misconduct of this kind, considering his contrition, we find that he is unlikely to repeat this conduct in the future and that personal deterrence does not feature significantly in the determination of the appropriate penalty in this case.
    Is there a need to protect the public through the deterrence of other practitioners from similar conduct?
    Is there a need to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession by reinforcing high professional standards and denouncing transgressions, even if there is no need to deter the Practitioner from repeating the conduct?
    59
    We have dealt with both these considerations together. Both can be answered in the affirmative.
    60
    The declarations made by a practitioner in their Renewal Applications are important because the answers to those questions allow the Board to assess a practitioner’s suitability to have their registration renewed, including whether the practitioner’s registration should be renewed with conditions to protect public safety.
    61
    For example, if a practitioner does not meet the Recency Standard, the Board may impose a period of supervised practice, require the practitioner to undertake further continuing professional development,
    15 ts 46.
    16 ts 45, 62 – 63.
    17 ts 67.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 21
    or undertake an assessment of their competence, which may include
    oral examinations or other examinations or assessments.18
    62
    The Applicant does not have the resources to check that every applicant for registration has met the recency of practice requirements nor to check the truth of every declaration made on annual Renewal Applications. The National Boards, including the Applicant, are reliant on the honesty of practitioners completing their annual Renewal Applications: Psychology Board of Australia v Elzo (Review and Regulation) [2020] VCAT 345 at [45].
    63
    The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal said in Medical Board of Australia v Win (Review and Regulation) (Amended) [2015] VCAT 1289:
    [43] The honesty and reliability of health practitioners is essential to ensuring that patients receive proper care and that patients and other health practitioners may place trust in the expertise of those providing health care. It is also essential when practitioners are dealing with the Board and other regulatory agencies – those bodies rely on practitioners honestly providing information which is important to decisions regarding registration and other matters.
    64
    That statement is as apposite to the regulation of pharmacists by the Pharmacy Board as it is to the medical practitioners regulated by the Medical Board.
    65
    The regulation of pharmacists is undertaken for the purpose of ensuring public confidence in the profession and patient safety.
    66
    As to the honesty expected of medical practitioners, in Medical Board of Western Australia and Bham [2006] WASAT 190 (Bham), [54] the Tribunal said:
    Members of the public expect members of the medical profession to be scrupulously honest in the conduct of their professional affairs.
    67
    That statement too is apposite to the regulation of pharmacists who are an integral part of the health profession.
    68
    In Medical Board of Australia and Lal [2017] WASAT 23, [112], the Tribunal referred with approval to statements made in Bham ([54]), and added that ‘Public confidence in the profession, and patient safety,
    18 Exhibit 1.9, AD pages 80 – 81, HB pages 105 – 106.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 22
    both demand that only scrupulously honest people are allowed to
    practise in professions’.
    69
    In Psychologists Registration Board of Victoria v Ferriere (2000) PRBD (Vic) 3, [23], the Board commented that the public is entitled to be concerned with whether a psychologist who has been prepared to be dishonest with their professional body is committed to or capable of being honest with them. That statement must, in our view, also be correct for pharmacists.
    70
    Dishonesty by pharmacists in relation to recency of practice is particularly serious given that the requirement that a practitioner meet that requirement is in place to ensure, as far as possible, that a practitioner is sufficiently skilled to perform the functions of a pharmacist. That is, it is directly connected with ensuring the safety of the members of the public who use a pharmacist’s services and rely upon their knowledge, professional expertise and judgment.
    71
    Because dishonesty of the kind engaged in by the Practitioner is easy to engage in and difficult to detect, the penalty which is to be imposed upon him needs to serve as an example to others that this kind of dishonesty is regarded as being particularly serious, in order to deter other pharmacists who might consider behaving in the same way. That is, general deterrence is a large component of the penalty to be imposed in this case to ensure the protection of the public and the maintenance of the high standards expected of the members of the pharmacy profession.
    72
    For similar reasons, there is a need to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession by reinforcing high professional standards and denouncing transgressions.
    In cases involving misleading conduct, including dishonesty, can the public and fellow practitioners place reliance on the word of the Practitioner in the future?
    73
    The Practitioner lied about an important matter related to his registration for a period of seven years. He gave evidence that he did so because he did not believe that he had any other option.19 It goes without saying that he had other options. While we are satisfied that the Practitioner is not likely to engage in similar dishonest conduct in
    19 ts 46.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 23
    the future, we consider that the public and fellow practitioners may
    have reservations about relying on his word in the future.
    Has the Practitioner breached any Act, Regulation, Guideline or Code of Conduct issued by the relevant professional body, and if so, did the Practitioner do so knowingly?
    74
    In making the seven false declarations from 2011 through to 2019, the Practitioner breached the Code of Conduct made by the Board under s 39 of the National Law. There are two versions of the Code of Conduct that cover this period.20 Both refer, in item 1.2, to the requirement for practitioners to be ‘ethical and trustworthy’.21 In knowingly making the seven false declarations, we find that the Practitioner did not behave in an ethical and trustworthy manner and breached the Code of Conduct.
    75
    As we outlined above, pursuant to s 109(1) of the National Law, a pharmacist seeking to renew their registration must declare that they have met the recency of practice requirements, as required by the approved registration standard: s 109(1)(a)(ii) National Law. Both versions of the Recency Standards specify minimum requirements for recency of practice for pharmacists to be able to demonstrate to the Board that they can safely and competently provide services to the public. In summary, those requirements include that the pharmacist has practised pharmacy for more than 450 hours in the past three years. The 2015 Recency Standard specifies an alternative to the 450-hour requirement, which is that the practitioner must have practised for a minimum of 150 hours in the 12-month period prior to applying for their registration.
    76
    Both the 2010 and the 2015 Recency Standards make it clear that if the required hours have not been met, the practitioner will need to provide evidence of their current competence to practise, and that the Board may impose a period of supervised practice, and may require the practitioner to undertake professional development, and assessments and/or examinations.
    77
    In making the seven false declarations, the Practitioner breached the applicable Recency Standards because he was certifying that he had practised for the required number of hours when he had not.
    20 Pharmacy Board of Australia, Code of Conduct for Registered Health Practitioners (1 July 2010) (2010 Code); and Pharmacy Board of Australia, For Pharmacists: Code of Conduct (17 March 2014) (2014 Code).
    21 2010 Code, page 2, AD page 28, HB page 53; and 2014 Code page 6, AD page 47, HB page 72.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 24
    78
    These Code of Conduct and Recency Standard breaches are, in our view, serious because the Code of Conduct and the Recency Standards are in place to ensure that pharmacists can safely and competently assist patients.
    Did the Practitioner’s conduct demonstrate incompetence?
    79
    The Practitioner’s conduct did not demonstrate any incompetence in his practice as a pharmacist. There has been no allegation made about the appropriateness of his clinical practice over the relevant period.
    80
    Indeed, we have accepted the Practitioner’s evidence that he deliberately did not work as a pharmacist for a period of time following his reregistration until such time as he felt he had regained the necessary skills to do so.
    81
    We have also considered nine character references provided to the Tribunal in support of the Practitioner, which are dated between July and August 2024.22 Those character references each state that the referee is aware that the Practitioner has been accused of professional misconduct for making false statements in his Renewal Applications between 2011 to 2019. Those references speak highly of the Practitioner’s good character, his insight into his wrongdoing and his competence as a pharmacist. We place weight on these character references because they were made with knowledge of the Practitioner’s conduct, and yet, the referees were nevertheless willing to attest to his good character.
    Was the conduct isolated, such that the Tribunal can be satisfied of the Practitioner’s worthiness or reliability in the future?
    82
    The Practitioner’s misconduct was repeated over seven years and cannot be regarded as an isolated incident.
    83
    Although repeated past behaviour can suggest a likelihood that the behaviour may be repeated in the future, for the reasons we have expressed elsewhere, we think it is unlikely that the Practitioner will repeat this conduct in the future.
    22 Exhibit 2.49 – 2.57, Respondent’s Documents (RD) pages 664-680, HB pages 823 – 839.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 25
    The Practitioner’s disciplinary history
    84
    The Practitioner has no other disciplinary history, which is a factor that weighs in his favour.
    Has the Practitioner demonstrated insight into the conduct and remorse for it? If not, does the Practitioner thereby demonstrate that they pose a risk to the community in the future?
    85
    As we have already found, the Practitioner is embarrassed, ashamed and remorseful for his conduct. He also stated that he should have researched other possibilities.23 More specifically, the Practitioner explained that he did not realise at the time that he could apply for registration as a non-practising pharmacist which would have permitted him to own a pharmacy. He said he would have done so if he was aware of this option. As he was not, he thought he had ‘no other option other than to lie’.24 We are of the view that the availability of this option makes very little difference to the characterisation of the conduct or the disciplinary sanction that ought to be imposed. The Practitioner was unaware of the possibility of obtaining non-practising registration and formed the view that he could only continue to own his pharmacies if he was registered as a pharmacist. He lied to achieve that benefit.
    86
    Although the Practitioner did not self-report his conduct, he was notified of the allegation on 27 October 2020,25 and in his response of 10 November 2020, he candidly admitted the conduct and expressed that he regretted his actions.26 His early acceptance of responsibility and cooperation with the regulator is to his credit.
    87
    We also note that in its letter dated 3 August 2022, the Board acknowledged that in his response to the notifications and in the reports from his supervisors, the Practitioner ‘demonstrated developing insight into his professional and ethical responsibilities as a registered pharmacist and with regard to the provision of competent and safe pharmaceutical care to the public’.27
    88
    We have already found at [57], that the Practitioner has been honest with his regular customers about these disciplinary proceedings. Relevantly to this consideration, he stated that when he received notification of the allegations, he stopped wearing his pharmacist’s
    23 ts 46.
    24 ts 46 – 47.
    25 Exhibit 2.17, RD page 217, HB page 376.
    26 Exhibit 2.18, RD page 224, HB page 383.
    27 Exhibit 2.37, RD page 568, HB page 727.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 26
    jacket and he changed his name badge so that it no longer identified
    him as a pharmacist. His evidence was that when customers asked him why these were different, or if they asked him why he was getting another pharmacist to check medication for a customer, he explained that he was now subject to restrictions because he had ‘done the wrong thing’. He said that these customers had stuck with him.28 Being honest with his customers is indicative that the Practitioner has insight into his conduct and that he has taken responsibility for his actions.
    89
    We find that the Practitioner’s insight and remorse was genuine. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the Practitioner is unlikely to pose a risk to the community by engaging in similar conduct in the future.
    Does the Practitioner have any special skills which it is desirable to make available to the public notwithstanding the misconduct?
    90
    The Practitioner’s evidence, which we accept, is that his Pharmacy 777 serves many elderly patients in a way which is different to the service they may receive at other local pharmacies. The Practitioner’s evidence was also that many elderly customers use the Pharmacy 777 because it is close to Woolworths, the banks and the post office.29 In his evidence the Practitioner said that about 80% of his regular customers at the Pharmacy 777 are elderly and about 40% to 50% of the regular customers at the Amcal pharmacy which he owns are elderly. The Practitioner’s evidence is that he provides a service to elderly patients which is not available at other pharmacies. He gave evidence that on one occasion a patient returned to his care at Pharmacy 777 after ‘being rejected’ by another pharmacy because he had been to the hospital too many times and they found it too difficult to manage all the changes in his medications, whereas his Pharmacy 777 ‘takes on the customers who are most needy in the community’.30
    91
    The Practitioner submitted that the impact of the outcome of this proceeding on those members of the community is something to which we may have regard in determining the appropriate penalty.31
    92
    Based on the evidence before us we cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that elderly persons, or indeed any person, needing to attend a pharmacy will be unable to be provided with
    28 ts 67.
    29 ts 65.
    30 ts 66.
    31 ts 107.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 27
    adequate advice, assistance or pharmaceutical products if the
    Practitioner cannot operate the two pharmacies, particularly the Pharmacy 777.
    93
    Accordingly, we give very little weight to this factor.
    The Practitioner’s personal circumstances at the time of his conduct and at the time of imposing the penalty, although these are necessarily second to the protection of the public
    94
    From the Practitioner’s evidence, including the documentary evidence concerning the corporate and trust entities and financial records of the pharmacy businesses tendered at the hearing, in paras [95] – [120], we make the following findings of fact concerning his personal and financial circumstances.
    95
    The Practitioner initially worked as an employed pharmacist from late 2008 until early 2010.
    96
    The Practitioner was running his petrol station businesses in 2011 when the first false declaration was made. At that time, he was 26 years old. It continued until he was 32 years of age. We accept that the Practitioner was relatively junior in his profession at that time. While that may go to his abilities as a pharmacist, it is not too young to know that lying is wrong. We do not regard his age as mitigating.
    97
    By late 2015 or 2016, he was married with two children and a third child was on the way. He became concerned about the stability of his petrol station businesses and formed the view, after looking into other businesses, that the only viable option was to return to pharmacy.32
    98
    At that time, he thought he had no other option than to lie to be able to maintain his ability to work as a pharmacist.
    99
    The Practitioner undertook research and found out that two pharmacy leases were expiring at the Westfield Carousel Shopping Centre. He negotiated with the shopping centre owners to lease him these premises. We return to the leases below, but first we will make factual findings about the corporate structure of the Practitioner’s pharmacy businesses.
    32 ts 46 – 47.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 28
    100
    In December 2016, the Practitioner formed a Unit Trust33 and a Family Trust.34
    101
    He also incorporated two companies, which we will refer to as the Company35, and the Second Company36. The Practitioner was the sole director and shareholder of both companies.37
    102
    The Company was the Trustee of the Unit Trust. The original unit holders of the Unit Trust were the Second Company as trustee for the Family Trust (80 units) and two other pharmacists whose interests (10 units each) were purchased in 2022 when the two other pharmacists exited the business. At the time of the hearing, all 100 of the units were held by the Second Company as Trustee for the Family Trust. 38
    103
    The ultimate beneficiaries of the Unit Trust are the Practitioner, his wife, his three minor children, the Practitioner’s father and a Third Company which the Practitioner had used to run his petrol station business.39 We do not have any evidence about this and can therefore make no findings as to whether, the Practitioner was the sole director and shareholder of the Third Company.
    104
    The Second Company was the Trustee of the Family Trust.40 The beneficiaries of the Family Trust are the Practitioner, his wife, the Third Company and the Practitioner’s three minor children.41
    105
    The Practitioner’s two pharmacies are owned and operated by the Company as Trustee of the Unit Trust.42
    106
    The profits from the pharmacy businesses are distributed from the Unit Trust to the Family Trust.43
    107
    The first pharmacy premises was previously a ‘Chemist Plus’ pharmacy (shop 1099).
    33 ts 48; Exhibit 2.5, RD page 138, HB page 297.
    34 ts 49; Exhibit 2.4, RD page 102, HB page 261.
    35 Exhibit 2.1, RD page 6, HB page 165.
    36 Exhibit 2.3, RD page 70, HB page 229.
    37 ts 48 – 49; RD pages 190 – 191, HB pages 349 – 350.
    38 ts 63, 78; Exhibit 2.5, RD page 174, HB page 333.
    39 ts 63.
    40 Exhibit 2.4, RD page 102, HB page 261 HB.
    41 ts, 49.
    42 ts 48; Exhibit 2.10, RD page 192, HB page 351.
    43 ts 77.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 29
    108
    Several months after the previous lease of shop 1099 had expired, the Practitioner developed that premises into a new pharmacy.44 That is, it was not purchased as an established pharmacy. It opened in September 2017 as ‘Friendlies Cannington’.45 In late 2019, the name of the pharmacy changed to ‘Pharmacy 777 Cannington’ after a new franchise agreement was entered into.46
    109
    The lease for shop 1099 commenced on 30 August 2017 and expired on 30 August 2024.47 A new lease which commenced on 30 August 2024 and will expire on 29 August 202748 was entered into. The lessee is the Company, as Trustee for the Unit Trust.49 There is no guarantor to this lease.
    110
    The second pharmacy is located at shop 1001/3 at the opposite end of the Westfield Carousel Shopping Centre to the Pharmacy 777. Before the Practitioner became involved operating the premises as a pharmacy, it was a ‘My Chemist’ pharmacy. The shopping centre’s management approached him when they could not agree the terms of a further lease with the previous tenants of the ‘My Chemist’ pharmacy premises. As with shop 1099, the Company, as Trustee for the Unit Trust, entered into a new lease for this premises, for a term of six years.50 That lease expired and a new lease was entered into, which commenced on 11 October 2023, and which will expire on 10 October 2027.51 There is no guarantor. Like the Pharmacy 777, this pharmacy was not purchased as an established pharmacy and was re-established as an ‘Amcal Cannington’.52
    111
    The Practitioner regards himself as having paid the costs associated with establishing the pharmacies.
    112
    The cost of fitting out the two pharmacies was $957,485. Those costs were incurred by the Unit Trust.53 The amount of approximately $957,485 for the fit out is recorded in the financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2022 for the Unit Trust as an
    44 ts 50.
    45 ts 50.
    46 ts 50; Exhibit 2.7, RD page 189, HB page 348.
    47 ts 50.
    48 ts 51; Exhibit 3.4, page 1, Respondent’s Supplementary Documents (RSD), page 42.
    49 ts 51; Exhibit 3.4, RSD page 19.
    50 ts 52.
    51 Exhibit 2.63, RD page 868, HB page 1027.
    52 ts 52; Exhibit 2.6, RD page 188, HB page 347.
    53 Exhibit 2.60, RD page 782, HB page 941.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 30
    unsecured loan with the Practitioner as the lender.
    54 The Practitioner’s evidence, which we accept, was that he initially funded the full amount of the fit out with the unsecured loan to the Unit Trust. That was because the two other pharmacists involved in the business, who had 10 units each, did not have sufficient funds of their own. He ultimately loaned the Unit Trust approximately 90% of the fit out costs, with the arrangement being that other two unit holders would repay their portion from the business earnings.55 The financial statements of the Unit Trust for the year ended 30 June 2022 also record a loan to the Unit Trust from the Third Company for $205,115 for working capital to operate the business.56 The Practitioner’s evidence was that the amount of those loans are now zero after a finance restructure in 2023.57 We are satisfied with the Practitioner’s evidence about these financial arrangements, which is supported by the documentary evidence, and we so find.
    113
    There are franchise agreements in place for each pharmacy.
    114
    On 11 October 2019, the Company as Trustee for the Unit Trust, with the Practitioner as Guarantor, entered into a franchise agreement for the Pharmacy 777 for an initial term which expired on 26 July 2022.58 That agreement was renewed on 27 January 2022, and it expires on 26 July 2027.59 The fees payable under the agreement total approximately $48,000 per annum.60
    115
    Sometime in 2017, the Company as Trustee for the Unit Trust entered into a franchise agreement for the Amcal Pharmacy which expired in October 2023. A new franchise agreement was entered into by the Company, as Trustee for the Unit Trust, which commenced on 1 October 2023, for a period of seven years. Under that agreement, the Company as Trustee for the Unit Trust, is liable to pay an annual franchise fee of $35,000 per annum, a monthly operations fee of $482 and a monthly catalogue fee of $212, with all amounts excluding GST.61 There is no guarantor to this franchise agreement.
    54 Exhibit 2.60, RD page 780, HB page 939.
    55 ts, 58 – 59.
    56 ts 79, Exhibit 2.60, RD page 780, HB page 973.
    57 ts, 79 – 80; see also Exhibit 2.61, RD page 814, HB page 973.
    58 Exhibit 2.58, RD page 681 and 750, HB pages 840 and 909.
    59 Exhibit 2.59, RD pages 761 – 762, HB pages 920 – 921.
    60 ts 54 – 55.
    61 Exhibit 2.62, RD pages 831 and 833, HB pages 990 and 992.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 31
    116
    The Practitioner is married. He is the primary breadwinner for his family and has three minor children.62 The Unit Trust paid him an annual salary of $80,000, which he increased to $90,000 when he purchased the units of the other pharmacists and became the only unit holder.63 In addition to his salary, there is a distribution of profits to the Family Trust each financial year. In the year ending 30 June 2023, the distribution of profits from the Unit Trust to the Family Trust was approximately $248,000, and in the year ending 2022, it was approximately $357,000.64 There are no records before us showing how the profits paid to the Family Trust are distributed to the beneficiaries. However, the beneficiaries are the Practitioner, his wife, their three dependent children and the Third Company65 and so we infer that the Practitioner and his family have the benefit of all or the majority of those funds.
    117
    The Practitioner’s wife works in a professional occupation and earns approximately $150,000 per year.66
    118
    The Practitioner personally owns residential land in a Perth suburb which he purchased in March 2023 for $2.3 million. Although it is mortgaged, there is approximately $1.2 million in equity in the property.67 The Practitioner has been planning to build a family home on that property. He currently lives in a rented property in the same suburb.68
    119
    There are debts associated with the two pharmacies. There is a business bank loan in the name of the Company of approximately $875,000.69 That business bank loan is the result of the 2023 refinancing.70 There is no evidence before us that the Practitioner has guaranteed that loan. The Company as Trustee for the Unit Trust also owes unpaid rent to the lessor (the shopping centre owner) of the Pharmacy 777 resulting from a loss of business during COVID-19 lockdowns. At the time of the hearing, the amount owing was approximately $190,000.71 The Practitioner intends to rebrand this pharmacy under a new franchise agreement from January 2025 and the
    62 ts 44.
    63 ts 76.
    64 ts 79 – 80; Exhibit 2.61, RD page 802, HB page 961.
    65 ts 49
    66 ts 75.
    67 ts 74 – 75; Exhibit 2.67, RD page 946, HB page 1105.
    68 ts 73.
    69 ts 71; Exhibit 2.68, RD page 952, HB page 1111.
    70 ts 80.
    71 ts 72.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 32
    new franchisor had offered to
    ‘help’ with this debt.72 A payment schedule agreed with the lessor also indicates that this unpaid rent would be paid off by the end of January 2025.73
    120
    When giving evidence, the Practitioner described the businesses, debts and liabilities as if they belonged to him personally. However, as we have set out in our findings, the pharmacy businesses were in fact owned and operated through corporate and trust entities. This type of business structuring is common because there can be tax advantages, as well as advantages in using such structures to limit personal liability. However, it has made it difficult for us to ascertain the extent of the personal liability of the Practitioner.
    121
    The Practitioner submitted that if his registration is cancelled, suspended, or disqualified, he will be forced to sell his pharmacies which will result in these debts and liabilities being realised, and that this would have a negative impact on the Practitioner and his family.
    122
    It is accepted that the Practitioner cannot hold a proprietary interest in a pharmacy unless the business is registered under the Pharmacy Act, which requires him to be a pharmacist registered under the National Law. We will briefly summarise the relevant legislative provisions to explain why this is the case.
    123
    The Pharmacy Registration Board (PRB), established by s 4 of the Pharmacy Act, is responsible for overseeing the registration of pharmacy premises under the Pharmacy Act.
    124
    Section 53 of the Pharmacy Act provides that a person must not own or hold a proprietary interest in a pharmacy unless the pharmacy business is carried on at premises that are registered as a pharmacy. Relevantly, s 46(1)(c)(i) of the Pharmacy Act provides that the PRB must cancel or refuse the registration of premises as a pharmacy if a person who owns or holds a proprietary interest in the pharmacy business carried on at the premises is not, or has ceased to be, a person who is entitled to own or hold a proprietary interest in a pharmacy business under s 54 of the Pharmacy Act. Section 54 provides that a person may not own or hold a proprietary interest in a pharmacy business unless the person is, relevantly for present purposes, a pharmacist or a ‘pharmacist controlled company’: s 54(1)(a) and (c) Pharmacy Act. The penalty provided for breaching s 54 is a fine of
    72 ts 72.
    73 Exhibit 3.2, page 6, RSD page 16.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 33
    $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a body corporate: s 54(2)
    Pharmacy Act.
    125
    Further, s 207 of the National Law provides that if a person’s registration is suspended, they are taken during the period of suspension not to be registered under the National Law. Thus, if the Practitioner’s registration is cancelled and he is disqualified from reapplying for registration for a period of time, or if his registration is suspended, he will not be entitled to hold a proprietary interest in the pharmacies, and specifically, the pharmacy businesses will no longer be ‘pharmacist controlled’. In those circumstances, the Practitioner and/or the Company as Trustee for the Unit Trust may be liable to a $5,000 or $10,000 fine. However, there is nothing requiring a sale to take place within any specified time frame and presumably, the PRB would have some discretion as to whether to prosecute for a breach of s 54.
    126
    Pursuant to s 46(2) of the Pharmacy Act, where the PRB proposes to cancel or refuse to renew the registration of a pharmacy, the PRB is to give the person in whose name the pharmacy is registered notice in writing of the proposal to cancel or refuse to renew the registration and the reasons for the proposal. Section 46(3) then provides that the person to whom the notice is given may make submissions to the PRB within 14 days after the notice is given and that the PRB may not determine the matter without considering any representations received within that period.
    127
    The Practitioner submits that unless he ceases to operate the pharmacies, or unless he sells them, upon the cancellation of his registration, he would commit an offence under s 53 of the Pharmacy Act. We do not accept that submission in its entirety. The offence in s 53 is owning or holding a proprietary interest in a pharmacy business unless the business is carried on at premises that are registered as a pharmacy. Therefore, it would only be when the registration of either or both the Practitioner’s pharmacy businesses are cancelled under s 46 that he would commit an offence if he continued to operate them.
    128
    We accept that if his registration is cancelled or suspended, the Practitioner will no longer be a person who is entitled to own or hold a proprietary interest in a pharmacy. Also, his pharmacy businesses will no longer be owned or held by a ‘pharmacist controlled company’ because although he controls the Company as Trustee for the Unit Trust, he would no longer be a pharmacist. In that circumstance, the Practitioner will be required to sell or cease to operate the
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 34
    pharmacies, otherwise the Practitioner or the Company as Trustee for
    the Unit Trust will commit the offence in s 54 of the Pharmacy Act.
    129
    The Practitioner is anxious to retain ownership of his pharmacies. His case proceeded on the basis that if his registration as a pharmacist was suspended or cancelled, that the only option would be to sell them. That is a reasonable basis upon which to proceed.
    130
    The Practitioner submits that he will have difficulty in selling his pharmacies and they will be sold for less than he may otherwise have been able to realise for them because they will be being sold in what has been described as a ‘fire sale’.74
    131
    The Applicant submits that the Practitioner did not prove this to the requisite standard having only provided two example of pharmacies which he says were on the market for a considerable amount of time and producing no evidence from a business broker as to the time it takes to sell a pharmacy. We agree with this submission.
    132
    The Practitioner produced evidence that was said to show that pharmacies are slow to sell, specifically screenshots from a pharmacy business sales website.75 Together with oral evidence from the Practitioner, we find that these demonstrate that a pharmacy at the Morley Galleria Shopping Centre was listed as being under offer after several months on the market and a Wizard Pharmacy located in a shopping centre in the suburb of Innaloo had been for sale for approximately eight or nine months.76
    133
    The Practitioner’s evidence was that pharmacies which are located within shopping centres are typically more difficult to sell because they have lower profit margins than other pharmacies and because there is a need to deal with the landlords of the entire shopping centre.77 Although we have no expert evidence as to that issue, we are generally prepared to proceed on the basis that it is correct.
    134
    The Practitioner submitted that it would not be financially advantageous to him to have to sell his pharmacies because his view was that they have been devalued by the introduction of the 60-day dispensing rule which commenced in September 2023.78
    74 ts 103.
    75 Exhibits 2.64 – 2.66, RD pages 935-945, HB pages 1094 – 1104.
    76 ts 67 – 69.
    77 ts 72 – 73.
    78 ts 100.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 35
    The
    Practitioner’s evidence was that each time a prescription is dispensed by a pharmacy, a dispensing fee is charged. The 60-day rule provides that medication can be prescribed for 60 days, instead of the previous maximum of 30 days. This reduced the number of times a patient would have to come to a pharmacy to obtain a prescription, thereby reducing the dispensing fees charged by the pharmacies. The Practitioner estimated that since the rule was introduced until the time of the hearing, that his pharmacies had lost approximately $15,000 in profits in total due to the 60-day rule.79 We accept this evidence and so find. From that we can generally infer that the 60-day rule, together with the $15,000 loss over approximately one year for the two pharmacies, may be a factor that would impact the sale price.
    135
    Further, there was no evidence from the Practitioner, or on behalf of the Practitioner, from any kind of business agent as to the current market for pharmacies. There is no evidence before us from which we could find that there is, or is not, a market for pharmacies or how long a pharmacy is typically on the market before a sale occurs. There is also no objective evidence from which we could find one way or another, if the pharmacies were to be offered for sale, what the likely sale price might be, how it may be affected by the 60-day rule, and whether a forced sale may result in sale at below market value.
    136
    We are of the view that for present purposes we can generally infer that if a potential purchaser is aware that a pharmacy would need to be sold within 14 days of being placed on the market the seller may be unlikely to realise the same sale price as a sale taking place without such a time pressure. However, we can be satisfied of no more than that. Therefore, the extent of financial detriment from any forced sale is not possible to ascertain.
    137
    In our view, the fact that the Practitioner is likely to be required to quickly sell the pharmacies and may suffer a loss as a consequence, or alternatively may be required to cease to operate them is a matter to which we may have regard in considering the penalty which is to be imposed. However, it is not a factor which carries significant weight. In our view, the fact that the appropriate disciplinary sanction may result in the Practitioner having to sell or abandon his pharmacies is a consequence of his conduct and a function of the operation of the Pharmacy Act. That such an outcome will be significant, cannot cause the Tribunal to impose a penalty which is less than that which is
    79 ts 69 – 70.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 36
    otherwise appropriate in all the circumstances to achieve the required
    protection of the public.
    138
    We accept the Practitioner’s evidence, and we find, that if the Practitioner ceases operating his pharmacies, significant financial obligations will be owed to his employees. There will be redundancy and long service leave entitlements which will have to be paid. The Practitioner calculated a potential liability of approximately $77,651 in redundancy payments and $55,000 in leave entitlements that may have to be paid to employees.80 We accept that evidence and make a finding to that effect. However, it would be the entity which employs the pharmacies’ staff, namely the Company as Trustee for the Unit Trust, who will legally have these liabilities. In the circumstances, while we cannot quantify the actual cost to the Practitioner personally, we find that Company as Trustee for the Unit Trust has a possible liability of $132,651 to its current staff.
    139
    However, if the pharmacies are sold, these entitlements may not need to be paid if the current employees continue to be employed at the pharmacies by the new owners.
    140
    The lease for each pharmacy allows for the lease to be transferred but requires, amongst other things, permission to be given by the landlord, and the payment of the landlord’s reasonable costs involved in any transfer.81 If the pharmacies were closed, the Company as Trustee for the Unit Trust would owe the balance of the rent due under those leases until the landlord could mitigate its costs by finding a new tenant for the premises.
    141
    The franchise agreement for the Pharmacy 777 requires the franchisor to consent before any interest under the agreement can be disposed of, and there are substantial conditions that need to be met before a transfer will be approved.82 The franchise agreement for the Amcal Pharmacy also provides that the franchisor’s consent must be obtained for any such transfer.83
    142
    If the pharmacies are closed, there may be significant financial consequences for the Company as Trustee for the Unit Trust which
    80 ts 64; Exhibit 2.72, RD pages 965 – 966, HB pages 1124 – 1125; Exhibit 2.79, RD page 981, HB page 1140.
    81 Exhibit 2.63, clause 21 on page 24 of lease, RD page 914, HB page 1073; Exhibit 3.4, clause 21 on page 24 of lease, RSD page 64.
    82 Exhibit 2.58, clause 22.2 and 22.3 on page 40 of the franchise agreement, RD page 727, HB page 886.
    83 Exhibit 2.63, clause 14 on page 15 of the franchise agreement, RD page 845, HB page 1004.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 37
    flow from the terms of
    the franchise agreements. The Amcal franchise agreement effectively provides that as the franchisee, the Company as Trustee for the Unit Trust would not be relieved of the obligations to pay monies under the agreements.84 Clause 25.3 of the Pharmacy 777 franchise agreement provides that either party may terminate the agreement if the Practitioner ceases to be registered as a pharmacist. Clause 26.3 provides that the pharmacist would be required to settle all amounts owing to the franchisor within 5 days.85 The Practitioner personally guaranteed the franchise agreement for Pharmacy 777, and so he may be personally liable if the Company as Trustee for the Unit Trust cannot meet the financial obligations to the Franchisor. However, there is no guarantor to the Amcal franchise agreement, and so the liable entity would be the Company as Trustee for the Unit Trust.
    143
    Because of the corporate structures in place for the operation of the pharmacy businesses and the uncertainty of the outcome of any need to sell them, it is difficult for us to ascertain the extent of the financial losses that the Practitioner himself will suffer if his registration as a pharmacist is cancelled or suspended.
    144
    Nevertheless, from all of the evidence concerning the Practitioner’s personal circumstances, we find that the cancellation of the Practitioner’s registration and the loss of the Practitioner’s income and distributions from the Family Trust (which will result if his registration is suspended or cancelled and he is disqualified from reapplying for a period of time and the pharmacies are then required to be sold) will have a significant financial impact upon the Practitioner and his family. The family relies on the income from the pharmacies to live in the suburb in which he rents and to retain the block of land on which they hope to build. However, we give significantly less weight to this factor because financial detriment is likely to be the case for almost everyone who faces being disciplined for professional misconduct of this kind and is largely a consequence of the Practitioner’s own making. Personal hardship or detriment that may arise from being disciplined cannot override the purpose of disciplinary proceedings. Nor can it result in the imposition of a penalty which is otherwise an inadequate penalty for the conduct concerned.
    84 Exhibit 2.62, clause 16.1(f) on pages 18 – 19 of franchise agreement, RD pages 848 – 849, HB pages 1007 – 1008.
    85 Exhibit 2.58, pages 46 and 49 of franchise agreement, RD pages 733 and 736, HB pages 892 and 895.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 38
    Any matters relevant to the Practitioner’s fitness to practise, or which may be regarded as aggravating the conduct or mitigating its seriousness, although these are of less significance than in the criminal process because of the protective purpose of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction
    Impact of the penalty on employees and students
    145
    The Practitioner gave evidence that 20 to 22 staff (comprising six or seven full-time staff and 10 part-time staff) are employed across the two pharmacies.86 He also gave evidence that there are currently eight pharmacy students working across the two pharmacies, which is important to the professional development component of their studies.87 We accept that evidence and so find.
    146
    The purpose of that evidence was to support a submission that any penalty which will necessitate the sale or cessation of the pharmacies will have an adverse impact upon those staff (including the students) which we ought to take into account.
    147
    There is no evidence before us that the staff would be unable to readily find other employment. That said, we accept that unwillingly being compelled to find other employment would be disruptive and is likely to be unsettling to the staff concerned. There is also no certainty that all of the staff would continue to be employed at the pharmacies if they were sold or would be willing to work for the new owners. Nevertheless, those are not matters to which we give significant weight in determining the appropriate penalty. They are, regrettably, a consequence which may flow from the imposition of the proper disciplinary sanction upon the Practitioner.
    148
    There are no matters beyond those to which we have already referred when dealing with other criteria which either aggravate or mitigate the penalty which is to be imposed for the purposes of achieving the objectives of disciplinary proceedings in this case.
    Comparable Cases
    149
    The Applicant has drawn our attention to comparable cases to support the position that cancellation of the Practitioner’s registration is the appropriate sanction in this case.
    86 ts 64.
    87 ts 65.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 39
    150
    In Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Joy Jones VR 1 of 2019, which was resolved by consent, the practitioner was found to have committed professional misconduct. The Tribunal found that her registration was improperly obtained because she had made false declarations about meeting the Board’s recency of practice registration standard in the years from 2012 through to 2017. As with this case, the Midwifery Board had renewed the practitioner’s registration as a midwife in part, based on the false representations. She was reprimanded and her registration as a midwife was cancelled. The Tribunal did not specify a period for which the practitioner was precluded from reapplying for registration.
    151
    In Health Ombudsman v Park [2021] QCAT 309, the practitioner, who was an intern pharmacist, was found to have gained general registration as a pharmacist by falsely representing the number of supervised hours of practice she had completed. The Tribunal found that this constituted professional misconduct, reprimanded the practitioner, cancelled her registration as a pharmacist, and disqualified her from reapplying for registration for a period of six months.
    152
    In Medical Board of Australia v Putha [2014] QCAT 159 (Putha) the practitioner had obtained her medical qualifications in India. When applying for limited registration in Australia, she exaggerated the extent of her experience in clinics in India because she ‘desperately wanted’ to work as a doctor in Australia. This resulted in her obtaining registration of a kind that she would not have been granted if the full facts were known by the Board. The Tribunal found that the misleading statements amounted to professional misconduct. Indeed, the Tribunal, at [35], referred to the registration as having been ‘obtained by fraud’. The practitioner’s registration was cancelled, and she was prohibited from applying for registration for a period of one year. She had already been suspended for 12 months prior to the Tribunal’s decision, which the Tribunal observed amounted to an overall ‘disbarment’ of two years.
    153
    In Nursing and Midwifery Board v Kindl (Review and Regulation) [2023] VCAT 981 (Kindl), the practitioner was a midwife who developed an opioid addiction following surgery. She stole a blank prescription pad from a medical practitioner and forged prescriptions for oxycodone and presented them at a range of pharmacies over a five-month period. This resulted in criminal charges. During a subsequent investigation by the Midwifery Board, it came to the Board’s attention that the practitioner had not met the
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 40
    recency of practice requirements when she applied for, and was
    granted, registration in 2016, 2017 and 2018. The Tribunal was satisfied that the practitioner knowingly or recklessly made a false or misleading declaration when applying to renew her nursing registration in 2016, and that the grant of registration for the 2017 and 2018 years was, at [116], ‘infected by the grant in 2016’. The Tribunal found that the practitioner’s conduct amounted to professional misconduct. She was reprimanded, and her registration was cancelled. At the time of the hearing, the practitioner had already been suspended for four and a half years. The Tribunal disqualified her from applying for registration for a further two-year period.
    154
    From these cases, we observe that in cases of dishonesty where false declarations are made to the regulator, the usual penalty is that the practitioner will be reprimanded, their registration will be cancelled, and they will serve a period of suspension.
    Would cancellation be punitive in this case?
    155
    The Practitioner contends that cancellation and disqualification (or suspension) of his registration would be disproportionate or punitive because:
    a. the restrictions under the Pharmacy Act mean that he would likely be forced to close his pharmacies, which would have an unduly punitive financial impact on him;
    b. any closure would have an unduly negative impact on the community, the pharmacy staff and students who rely on the pharmacies; and
    c. the Practitioner has already been subject to a period of 19 months where he was unable to work as a registered pharmacist at all or could not work at his pharmacies.
    156
    The Practitioner submits that, although cancellation and disqualification may otherwise have been appropriate, a reprimand and either a fine or a condition on his registration is sufficient penalty in light of the other consequences which would follow a suspension or cancellation of his registration.
    157
    The Practitioner submits that where cancellation of registration and disqualification (or suspension) have been imposed in other States,
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 41
    the legislation there does not require that a pharmacy be owned by a
    registered pharmacist.
    158
    The Practitioner says that the National Law cannot be considered in isolation and the impact of the operation of the Pharmacy Act upon the Practitioner is a matter to which we must have regard in determining the appropriate penalty in this case. It is submitted that to do otherwise would be artificial and would disregard the practical effect of the penalty imposed upon him. Rather, the Practitioner says that the scheme created by the Pharmacy Act must be treated as part of the relevant legislative context in which s 196 of the National Law is applied in Western Australia.
    159
    The Practitioner submits that, in that context, suspension or cancellation of his registration would amount to punishment because of the impact of the provisions of the Pharmacy Act preventing the ownership of pharmacies by persons without current registration as a pharmacist.
    160
    Consequently, the Practitioner submits that the cases relied upon by the Applicant as to penalty are not comparable because there are no provisions equivalent to the Pharmacy Act with respect to doctors or nurses.
    161
    However, that consequence was identified before the Tribunal in Pharmacy Board of Australia and Hegde [2020] WASAT 89 (Hegde). In that case the practitioner admitted that he had engaged in professional misconduct in his dispensing of anabolic steroids. When considering the personal circumstances of the practitioner in that case, the Tribunal had regard to the fact that the practitioner would be required to sell the two pharmacies he owned as part of its consideration of the practitioner’s personal circumstances. Nevertheless, after considering the applicable principles for assessing penalty, the Tribunal concluded that the protection of the public, and the maintenance of standards in the profession, justified the cancellation of the practitioner’s registration as a pharmacist. In that case the judgment does not identify that it was argued that such a penalty would amount to punishment because of the impact of the application of the Pharmacy Act. Nor does it appear that that argument was advanced in the stay application or the appeal which followed.
    162
    The practitioner in Hegde sought a stay of the Tribunal’s decision in the Supreme Court in Hegde v Pharmacy Board of Australia
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 42
    [2020]
    WASC 383 (Hegde Stay Decision). The stay application was heard by the Chief Justice. While the stay application was unsuccessful, the Chief Justice made an urgent appeal order to expedite the hearing of the appeal. The practitioner’s appeal was successful88 and the Supreme Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal to redetermine the penalty.
    163
    In Hegde v Pharmacy Board of Australia [2023] WASAT 109 the Tribunal determined that the appropriate penalty was a reprimand, suspension for a period of two months and a fine of $10,000. That penalty needs to be considered in light of the circumstances of that case, which included that the conduct that the practitioner had engaged in occurred nearly 15 years prior to the Tribunal’s re-hearing of the matter, and the fact that the matter had been ongoing since 2019, which had taken a toll on the practitioner’s mental health and his personal relationships. Additionally, the particular conduct involved was not of the same character.
    164
    The Applicant submits that once the Practitioner knew that the Board was seeking a penalty that involved cancellation of his registration, he should have taken steps to sell the pharmacies and should not have renewed his commercial franchise arrangements. The Applicant further submits that the fact that they may now need to be sold in a hurry is matter of his own making to which the Tribunal should have little regard in determining penalty. In this regard, the Applicant referred to observations made by the Chief Justice in the Hegde Stay Decision. The Chief Justice discussed the relevant provisions of the Pharmacy Act, at [22] – [25], to outline the consequences of Mr Hegde ceasing to be registered as a pharmacist, including that he may be served with a notice under s 46 of the Pharmacy Act. In considering the balance of convenience, the Chief Justice observed, at [61], that Mr Hegde ‘must have known his day of reckoning would be coming’ and that ‘he must have known there was a real prospect that he would face a period of suspension that would affect the registration of the pharmacies’. At [63], the Chief Justice further stated that ‘the potential for adverse consequences under the Pharmacy Act can be said to be, at least in part, prejudice of his own making’.
    165
    The Practitioner rejects the submission that he should have preempted the outcome of the Tribunal proceedings by acting in
    88 Hegde v Pharmacy Board of Australia [No 2] [2020] WASC 384.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 43
    anticipation that the Tribunal would find a period of suspension or
    cancellation of his registration was appropriate.
    166
    The Practitioner submits that where it was not certain that that would be the outcome, and where such an outcome will be so detrimental to his financial position, he was entitled to wait for the outcome of the Tribunal’s decision and should not be required to ‘prepare for a day of reckoning’ that may, or may not, be coming. The Practitioner submits that we should treat the Chief Justice’s comments in the Hegde Stay Decision with some caution because they were made in a different context, namely when assessing the balance of convenience in a stay application. In contrast, the test that the Tribunal must apply in this case is to determine the appropriate penalty having regard to the protection of the public and the maintenance of the public’s confidence in the high standards of the profession.89
    167
    It is of course true that the Practitioner (or rather the Company as trustee for the Unit Trust) was entitled to continue to own the pharmacies and to enter into whatever commercial arrangement he saw fit before the disciplinary proceedings are concluded. However, in our view, his choices cannot dictate the outcome of this proceeding.
    168
    As we mentioned above, the fact is that if his registration is cancelled or suspended, the Pharmacy Act provisions will mean that the Practitioner will no longer be able to own the two pharmacies. That he may now have to sell them under some duress is a consequence of the choice which he has made not to take steps to offer them for sale at an earlier time.
    169
    That said, it is not a matter that we find to be a mark against him which justifies a stronger penalty than would otherwise be required to be imposed.
    170
    We do not consider that a penalty which involves the cancellation of the Practitioner’s registration as a pharmacist, or suspension of that registration, is to be regarded as punitive simply because the consequence is that the Pharmacy Act will operate to prevent him (or entities he controls) from continuing to own the pharmacies. Nor do we consider the possible impact on the community, pharmacy staff or students would make suspension or cancellation disproportionate or punitive.
    89 ts 99.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 44
    171
    The Practitioner submitted that he has already effectively served a period of suspension due to the immediate action which the Board took under the National Law.
    172
    More specifically, on 3 December 2020, the Board took immediate action against the Practitioner by imposing conditions on his registration which provided that the Practitioner could only practise as a pharmacist under the supervision of another pharmacist approved by the Board.90 Following that decision, there was correspondence between the Practitioner and the Board concerning the nomination and approval of supervisors, and it was not until 7 June 2021, some six months later, that the Practitioner’s supervisors were approved by the Board, following which the Practitioner worked in another pharmacy under supervision for nine hours a week, for which he was not paid. On 3 August 2022, the Board decided to end the period of immediate action and to impose alternate conditions on the Practitioner’s registration in the form of indirect supervision which required weekly consultation with his supervisors.91
    173
    The Practitioner says that when we determine penalty we should have regard to the time which he spent unable to practice his profession because of the immediate action process.92 Specifically, the periods we have outlined amounted to a total period of approximately 19 months comprising the initial six months after the immediate action on 3 December 2020 where he was not able to work as a pharmacist, and the further period of some 13 months following the approval of his supervisors from 7 June 2021 until 3 August 2022, where he undertook unpaid, supervised work in another pharmacy. The Practitioner accepts that we should not apply a ‘one for one’ reduction of any period of suspension or disqualification.
    174
    The Applicant submitted that the Practitioner’s time out of practice, and the time in which he was subject to conditions, should not be mitigatory because the conditions imposed by way of immediate action are those which would have been imposed if the Practitioner had been honest with the Board in the first place. That is, it is submitted, that if the Practitioner had disclosed that he had not met the recency of practice requirements, as set out in the Recency Standards, the Board would have imposed conditions on his registration, and there would
    90 Exhibit 2.21, RD page 328 – 342, HB pages 487 – 501.
    91 Exhibit 2.37, RD page 565 – 578, HB pages 724 – 737.
    92 ts 40 – 43.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 45
    have been a period of time where he would have been unable to work
    as a pharmacist because he was unable to satisfy the conditions.93
    175
    We find that the 19 months where the Practitioner could not work as a pharmacist is a relevant factor for us to consider in determining the appropriate penalty. That is consistent with cases such as Putha and Kindl. However, we also accept the Applicant’s submission that these consequences would likely have resulted if the Practitioner had initially been honest with the Board. We further observe that, based on the financial records provided by the Practitioner, the two pharmacies continued to trade over the relevant period, and even though he was unable to work as a pharmacist, the Practitioner was able to earn an income through distributions paid to his family trust over the time when the immediate action conditions were in force. Specifically, in the financial year ending 30 June 2022, $357,492 was distributed to the Family Trust, but nothing was distributed for the financial year ending 30 June 2021 because there was a loss in that financial year.94 In the financial year ended 30 June 2023, the Family Trust received a distribution of $248,502.95 Thus, whilst we have taken the period of 19 months into account, we do not find that it should substantially reduce any period of cancellation or disqualification, which we would otherwise have imposed.
    Conclusion
    176
    The Practitioner’s conduct was extremely serious. The need to deter others from acting as he did is particularly significant given the ease with which the false declarations can be made and the difficulty faced by the Applicant in auditing practitioners for compliance.
    177
    We are satisfied that no lesser penalty than the cancellation of the Practitioner’s registration and a period of disqualification from applying for reregistration will meet the objectives for which disciplinary sanctions are imposed, notwithstanding the possible consequences to the Practitioner that will also follow under the Pharmacy Act.
    178
    Having regard to comparable cases, the Practitioner’s personal circumstances, including the fact that he was unable to practice for a period of 19 months, and the impact which the penalty will have upon him, his family, staff and customers, we find that the appropriate penalty is a reprimand, the cancellation of his registration as a
    93 ts, 87.
    94 ts, 77; Exhibit 2.60, RD pages 768, HB page 927.
    95 Exhibit 2.61, RD page 802, HB page 961.
    [2025] WASAT 30
    Page 46
    pharmacist and a disqualification from reapplying for registration as a
    pharmacist for a period of 18 months.
    179
    We will hear from the parties as to the form of orders which we should now make, including whether there are to be agreed orders as to costs or whether we need to make orders programming the determination of any costs application. To that end, the parties should confer and file an agreed minute of proposed orders, or alternatively their own minutes of proposed orders by 24 April 2025.
    I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
    JD
    Associate to the Hon Justice Glancy
    11 APRIL 2025