In May 2025, the High Court dismissed an urgent application by a clinical psychologist against the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) to stay the hearing of a professional misconduct inquiry by its Professional Conduct Committee until the court decided on her application to review the Committee’s decision not to grant a discharge.

The HPCSA received two complaints relating to the professional conduct of the psychologist. In the first complaint, the psychologist’s client alleged that the psychologist had, in a report that she prepared for court proceedings relating to the well-being of the client’s minor child, claimed she interviewed people when she had not done so. The second complaint was from one of the persons the psychologist claimed to have consulted with whereas she had not done so. The psychologist faced two charges arising from the complaints in an inquiry into alleged unprofessional conduct before the Committee.

After the pro forma complainant closed its case, the psychologist applied to the Committee for a discharge in terms of Regulation 9(7) of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries into alleged unprofessional conduct of the Health Professions Act. The Committee dismissed the application for a discharge on the basis that there was a case for the psychologist to answer in defence of the charges.

The Court decided that the psychologist did not satisfy the requirements for an interim interdict and therefore the application was dismissed. In reaching its decision, the Court decided that the psychologist’s prospects of success in the review of the Committee’s decision were poor.

The Court highlighted that intervention in incomplete proceedings is only justified in exceptional circumstances, a threshold that the psychologist failed to meet. The Court confirmed that the right against self-incrimination afforded to accused persons under section 35(3)(j) of the Constitution applied to criminal accused and not to individuals subject to administrative inquiries.

In dealing with the issue of irreparable harm and the balance of convenience, the Court referred to Regulation 10 which provides that if an application for a discharge is refused by the Committee, the psychologist may address the Committee and lead evidence in support of her case, re-examine the witnesses after cross-examination by the pro forma complainant, and thereafter close her case in defence of the charges. The requirement for the psychologist to make an election flows from the regulations and there was no challenge made by her to the constitutionality of the regulations. In the absence of such challenge, it cannot be said that there will be harm, let alone irreparable harm, to require the psychologist to make an election required in terms of the regulations.

This judgment serves as a reminder that the Courts will not interdict the completion of administrative inquiries, such as HPCSA professional misconduct inquiries, unless compelling grounds exist.

T E Raphael v Health Profession Council of South Africa & Another (2025-051303) [9 May 2025]