Inside the bitter feud between Sydney’s ‘Botox queen’ Dr Naomi and a rival cosmetic doctor: Fair Work claims, a defamation threat, an ATO complaint… and his crushing court loss that ended it all

A prominent Sydney cosmetic doctor has won a lengthy court battle against a former contractor who claimed he was owed thousands of dollars for work as a ‘Medical Director’.

Dr Stephen Crimston brought the case against Dr Naomi McCullum, founder of The Manse Clinic, which she opened in Paddington in 2002 before expanding into Sydney’s CBD with Uptown Manse in 2020.

The clinic specialises in cosmetic treatments, including Botox. 

Dr Crimston served as Medical Director of The Manse Clinic between August 2018 and July 2019 before taking Dr McCullum to court, claiming he was owed additional payment for the role.

He also alleged Dr McCullum had overcharged him for cosmetic medical products between July 2019 and September 2020.

But the NSW District Court ruled in favour of Dr McCullum, dismissing claims worth about $41,000 brought by the cosmetic doctor.

The judge described the claim as ‘without substance’ and said it was ‘groundless and so weak as to be futile’.

‘It was not reasonable for the plaintiffs to pursue these proceedings given the state of their evidence at every stage,’ Judge Cole said.

The court accepted Dr McCullum’s evidence that the Medical Director title had been offered as a marketing strategy to assist Dr Crimston in building his practice, rather than because he had been appointed to a formal management role.

Dr McCullum announced on social media on Tuesday that she had won the case after a six-year legal battle. 

Judge Cole found there was no agreement to pay Dr Crimston additional remuneration for acting as Medical Director and accepted Dr McCullum’s evidence that no such arrangement existed.

The court further found the clinic had not requested much of the work relied upon in support of the claim. 

Draft agreements relied upon by Dr Crimston, which outlined proposed Medical Director duties and additional remuneration, were found to have been prepared by Ms Kirralee Young, a colleague of his wife, rather than by Dr McCullum, Britmed or the clinic’s HR consultant. 

There was no evidence Dr McCullum had agreed to the proposed terms. 

The judge also rejected Dr Crimston’s claim that he had spent about 20 hours a week carrying out the duties, finding the meetings and documents he relied on did not support his account.

His separate claim that he had been overcharged for cosmetic products was also dismissed. The court found the costs extended beyond the wholesale price paid by the clinic to include storage, handling, stock management and other expenses.

Dr Crimston had failed to prove he was charged more than the agreement allowed.

The doctor is a Fellow of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and currently serves as Medical Director of All Saint Clinic, an aesthetics clinic. 

Judge Cole also detailed what the court described as a years-long dispute between Dr Crimston and Dr McCullum following the breakdown of their professional relationship. 

The costs judgement records how the dispute extended beyond the court proceedings, with Dr Crimston commencing two Fair Work Commission matters, issuing a defamation concerns notice, and lodging a complaint with the Australian Tax Office (ATO).

On that last point, the court’s published decision noted that the resulting ATO audit determined Dr Crimston was not an employee of Britmed and that the matter was closed.

Later, through lawyers, Dr Crimston even alleged bullying and sexual harassment while foreshadowing further legal claims. However, Judge Cole noted that ‘the foreshadowed action was not taken’. 

In ordering indemnity costs against Dr Crimston and his company, Judge Cole found that ‘the filing and pursuing of these proceedings in the absence of credible evidence to support the allegations constitutes exceptional circumstances’.

Judge Cole also found that aspects of Dr Crimston’s evidence were unreliable and preferred the evidence of Dr McCullum and HR consultant Elizabeth Boots on a number of disputed issues.

Crucially, the judgement ruled that ‘any time or energy expended’ by Dr Crimston preparing protocols or attending meetings was undertaken in pursuit of his ambition to secure a management role and was not the result of anything done by or on behalf of Britmed. ‘Such a role was never assigned to him, expressly or impliedly,’ it said.

The Daily Mail has approached Dr McCullum and Dr Crimston for comment.