Case Summary: Health Care Complaints Commission v Limboro

Case Summary: Health Care Complaints Commission v Limboro [2018] NSWCATOD 117

Case Citation: Health Care Complaints Commission v Limboro [2018] NSWCATOD 117

Name of the Applicant: Health Care Complaints Commission

Name of Respondent: Mr. Hance Limboro

State: NSW

Tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal


Case History


In the Local Court, he was found guilty of advertising services in a misleading way and using testimonials in advertisements. He was fined $29,500.




Mr. Limboro was a chiropractor in Sydney. On his website, there were a series of cancer cure claims within his articles such as:

• “[C]ancer is 100% preventable.”

• "... Another kind of cancer prevention that is believed to most effective and beneficial is chiropractic treatment.”

• “By having a regular visit to a chiropractor, people can rest assured that are [sic] prevented from having cancer.”

• “Chiropractic focuses on treating any misalignment in your posture (which mostly is in the spine) which is believed to be the cause of all diseases in the body, including cancers. When the posture problems are solved, the cancer can also be cured.”




At [10]:

The issue for the Tribunal was whether the practitioner is a suitable person to hold registration and/or is unfit in the public interest to practise by reason of the criminal conviction.


Ratio Decidendi


At [22]:

…it is clear that criminal conduct is a distinct factor when determining suitability to practise which must be assessed in light of a holistic inquiry into suitability. This assessment takes into account the wider context of the practitioner’s improper conduct, including their motivation, insight into the harm caused, and attempts at remediation since the events and since any investigation or sanction. All of these considerations, past and present, must inform an assessment of current suitability to practise, within a legislative framework of public protection in which the health and safety of the public are the paramount consideration. Public protection goes beyond specific questions of individual deterrence and the risk of repetition to encompass the broader goal of safety through the setting and maintaining of professional standards, and through this, public confidence in the health professions.


And at [55]:

The circumstances of the criminal conviction bear directly upon the question of the practitioner’s fitness and suitability to practise as they arise from, and relate to, his profession as a chiropractor and business methods in promoting his chiropractic services.




He was found unfit to be a chiropractor and his registration was cancelled for two years.