Roux v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Another

The appellant, Ms Lynette Mary Roux, a registered clinical psychologist, was appointed by the Family Advocate to conduct a forensic assessment and prepare a report in a child access dispute. After submitting her report in March 2004, she later assumed a therapeutic role by treating the minor child and supplemented her earlier report while still acting as therapist. In 2005, the child’s father, Mr Powell, lodged a complaint with the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA), alleging unprofessional conduct based on (a) the appellant’s assumption of multiple professional roles and (b) alleged misdiagnosis and labelling of him. The committee of preliminary inquiry of the professional board for psychology considered the complaint and resolved that an inquiry should be held only in respect of the multiple relationships allegation. Despite this, the pro forma complainant later added a misdiagnosis charge to the charge sheet without authorisation from the committee. The appellant approached the High Court seeking to have the charges set aside. The High Court dismissed the application, but leave to appeal was granted.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The High Court order was set aside. Count 1 (the misdiagnosis charge) of the charge sheet dated 4 September 2009 was set aside. The HPCSA was directed to hold an inquiry solely in respect of Count 2 (the multiple relationships charge) within two months. The first and second respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay the costs.

The case is a leading authority on the limits of disciplinary powers of professional regulatory bodies and reinforces the constitutional principle of legality in administrative and quasi-administrative processes. It clarifies the distinct roles of preliminary inquiry committees and pro forma complainants under the Health Professions Act, ensuring procedural fairness and lawful exercise of public power in professional discipline.