Charge Detail Summary

File Number: Psy22/570P
Practitioner: Carien Lubbe De Beer
Hearing Start Date:

Hearing End Date:

Hearing Town/City:
Hearing Location:
Charge Characteristics:

Relationship inappropriate (Established)

Privacy - breach of

Records - inadequate/inappropriate

Additional Orders:

Name Suppression to Practitioner

Interim non-publication order for the suppression of the practitioner's name and identifying details

No application was made for permanent suppression of the practitioner's name.  Interim suppression lapsed 20 working days from the date of the decision


Name Suppression to Complainant and/or Patient and/or client

Interim non-publication order for the suppression of the clients name and identifying details

Permanent non-publication order for the suppression of the clients name and identifying details


Name Suppression to Witness/s and/or Family of parties

Interim non-publication order for the suppression of the client and practitioners partners name and identifying details

Permanent non-publication order for the suppression of the clients and practitioners partners name and identifying details


Appeal Order:


Full Decision 1356_Psy22_570P.pdf

Appeal Decision:

Precis of Decision:


A panel of the Health Practitioner’s Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) convened on 19 July 2023 to hear a charge laid by a Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) appointed by the Psychologists Board of New Zealand against Dr Carien Lubbe-De Beer, registered psychologist of  Tauranga (the Psychologist).


The charge alleged that the Psychologist conducted herself in an inappropriate and/or unprofessional manner by:

  1. Failing to create or adhere to professional boundaries with her client, [Ms T];
  2. Fostering dependence and/or engendered feelings of being special in her client; and 
  3. Failing to create or to keep adequate clinical records or records of her communications with [Ms T].


The PCC alleges that the Psychologist’s conduct is a departure from the Psychologists Board’s Code of Ethics and her conduct, either separately or cumulatively, amounts to malpractice or negligence and has brought, or is likely to bring discredit to the profession.

The Psychologist did not attend the hearing but accepted the charge and that it amounted to professional misconduct warranting disciplinary sanction.  The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Summary of Facts.

The full charge is set out in the schedule of the full decision.



The Psychologist first qualified and commenced practice as a psychologist in South Africa in 2001. In 2016, The Psychologist immigrated to New Zealand from South Africa with her partner, [Ms R]. In 2012, [Ms T], the complainant, had also immigrated with her partner [Dr G] from South Africa. 

The Psychologist had a pre-existing social relationship with [Ms T] together with each of their respective partners. In spite of this, and with no professional boundaries in place from 1 June 2019 to 16 November 2019, the Psychologist provided therapy to [Ms T].

After therapy ceased, the Psychologist and her partner maintained phone and social contact with [Ms T] and her partner.

On 13 March 2020 the Psychologist sent a message to [Ms T]’s partner without [Ms T]’s knowledge or consent, indicating that she was concerned about [Ms T]’s mental health and suggesting she return for therapy. 

By May 2020, after an apology meeting, the Psychologist deleted [Ms T]’s phone number as a contact which, in turn deleted her own record of the many texts exchanged during therapy and afterwards (aside from those in March 2020).



The Tribunal found the Charge of professional misconduct with four particulars cumulatively established as malpractice and negligence. This conduct also brought and was likely to bring discredit to the psychology profession and warranted a disciplinary sanction.

Psychologists should avoid a dual relationship with their clients that is both social and professional where that might present a conflict of interest. 



The Tribunal ordered:

  • Censure;
  • Conditions on the practitioner’s practice for a period of 18 months;
  • A fine of $5,000;
  • Contribution of 25% to the costs of the Tribunal and the PCC, fixed at $30,000.



The Tribunal directed publication and a summary of its decision.