Appeal — Social Workers Registration Act 2003, ss 3, 66, 67, 71, 72A, 91, 93 & sch 1AA — District Court Rules 2014, r 18.19 — Craig v Social Workers Registration Board [2016] NZDC 8283 — Austin, Nichols & Co, Inc v Stichting Lodestar [2007] NZSC 103, [2008] 2 NZLR 141. The appellant appealed against a decision of the Social Workers Registration Board ("the Board") directing supervision of the appellant. A Professional Conduct Committee ("PCC") had been appointed by the chairperson of the Social Workers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal to investigate a complaint laid against the appellant by a client. The PCC concluded that the appellant did not breach any ethical duty or Code of Conduct with regards to the complaint; however, it recommended that the appellant be subject to future supervision. The Social Workers Registration Board took on this recommendation and directed that the appellant be subject to supervision. An earlier jurisdictional issue had been raised as to whether the District Court could hear the appeal; it was determined that it could. This was the substantive appeal decision. Pursuant to r 18.19 of the District Court Rules, an appeal was to be conducted by way of rehearing. Section 91 of the Social Workers Registration Act ("the Act") permits the District Court to confirm, reverse, or modify the decision or order appealed against and may make any other decision or order that the person or body that made the decision or order appealed against could have made, and s 93 permits the District Court to refer the matter back to the person or body whose decision or order is appealed. The appellant's submission was that the Board had not acted in accordance with the rules of natural justice, or its obligation to give him a reasonable opportunity to comment on further aspects raised by the PCC. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the purpose and primary objectives of the Act are to ensure that social workers are competent and professional and that the interests of the public are safeguarded, and that the PCC made recommendations for improvement in the appellant's practice which were not unduly arduous. The Judge noted concerns with the PCC's approach to its recommendations. However the decision of the Board, not of the PCC, was not the subject of the appeal. The Judge did not consider the approach by the Board met its obligations to give a full explanation as to why it had not accepted the appellant's submissions. An option available to the Board under s 72A of the Act was to not agree with the recommendation and instead refer the complaint back to the PCC for further consideration. The Judge viewed this as the decision that the Board should have made, and exercised the power under s 91 to modify the Board's decision accordingly. The outcome of this was that the Board was to now refer the complaint back to the PCC for further consideration, and to have a discussion with the appellant and provide the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the further aspects which formed the basis of its recommendations. Judgment Date: 22 February 2021.