Psychologist Christina Fransina Johanna Els has lost her court case against the health regulatory body. Her case was dismissed with costs.
The Western Cape High Court refused her court application on grounds of her misconduct in the case she was appealing. This because she had avoided to pay fines to the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) for her misconduct.
The order was handed down on Thursday.
Gross professional code violation case ongoing
The statutory professional organisation, the HPCSA, is in the process of disciplining Johanna for gross violation she committed in 2013.
Johanna engaged in “multiple relationships” while working as an acting court-appointed facilitator in a Children’s court in Cape Town.
It is believed that she offered professional therapeutic services to certain individuals of the parties involved in that matter. This act is a breach of psychology rules.
Such conduct is regarded by the HPCSA as unprofessional. This is because it is a breach of the Professional Board for Psychology Rules of Conduct Pertaining to the Profession of Psychology (the Psychology Rules).
The court disclosed that in December 2013, a complaint was filed over Johanna’s alleged violation of the Psychology Rules.
The applicant was deemed to have behaved unprofessionally as claimed by the HSPCA’s Committee of Preliminary Enquiry on December 9, 2015. She was subject to specific admission of guilt fines, which she chose not to pay.
Summoned before the Conduct Committee
Consequently, on March 30, 2016, Johanna received a formal allegation of unprofessional conduct. She was summoned before the Conduct Committee for oral evidence hearing.
According to the court, a finding of guilty before the Conduct Committee was going to have serious consequences. It could lead in Johanna’s name removed from the register of practitioners.
“For all of these reasons, I am of the view that the applicant has failed to make out a case for intervention by this court in the disciplinary inquiry. And the application must thus be dismissed,” said judge Gamble.
The HPCSA and the Professional Conduct Committee asked that costs follow the result. Also that if the application was unsuccessful, the applicant should be ordered to pay punitive costs.
Counsel for the applicant accepted that costs should follow the result.
“There are people who enter into litigation with the most upright purpose and the firmest belief in the justice of their cause. And yet whose proceedings may be regarded as vexatious when they put the other side to unnecessary trouble and expense. Which the other side ought not to bear. That I think is the position in the present case.”
