Reserved decision — application for registration — appropriate qualifications — "equivalent to, or as satisfactory as" — unreasonableness — Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, ss 12, 15, 20, 106, 109(3) & Sch 3 cl 1 & 15 — Manglicmot v Nursing Council of New Zealand DC Wellington CIV-2010-085-053, 28 July 2010 — Zanicotti v Medical Council of New Zealand [2016] NZDC 14809 — Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar [2007] NZSC 103 — Christchurch Medical Officer of Health v J & G Vaudrey Ltd [2015] NZHC 2749. The appellant had qualified as a doctor in 2005 and since then had undertaken neurosurgical training in Hungary, with work placements in several countries including New Zealand. He subsequently applied to be registered as a neurosurgeon in New Zealand, but the respondent declined his application on the advice of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS). RACS had advised the respondent that aspects of the appellant's training, experience and qualifications were not "equivalent to, or as satisfactory as" those of a New Zealand-trained practitioner. The appellant appealed this decision, and asked that the Court order that he be registered. He submitted that the respondent had simply followed the advice of RACS rather than reaching its own decision. Further, the respondent had failed to properly engage with the appellant's response to RACS' advice. The appellant's final ground of appeal was that the respondent's decision was unreasonable, given that the appellant's training had been comprehensive and that his colleagues spoke highly of him. Although the appellant's background was somewhat unconventional, this did not mean that his training, experience and qualifications were not "equivalent to, or as satisfactory as" those of a New Zealand-trained practitioner. The Court reviewed documents produced by the respondent in the making of its decision. From reviewing the documents the Court concluded that the respondent had made a number of factual errors. These errors undermined the respondent's conclusion that the appellant's experience and training were unsatisfactory. Also, the respondent had failed to properly analyse the differences between the appellant's position and the advice that the respondent had received from RACS. The respondent had not seemed to appreciate that it was able to make a decision of its own rather than just following the advice from RACS. The Court found that the respondent had erred. However the Court was not in a position to make its own decision contrary to that of the respondent. The Court ordered that the appellant's application be remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration. Judgment Date: 28 September 2022