MANNING v THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES and ANOR [1992] NSWCA 145

MANNING v THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES and ANOR [1992] NSWCA 145

Misconduct for disciplinary purposes under s26(1)(d) must be of an aggravated or serious kind that renders a practitioner unfit in the public interest. The District Court judge's assessment that the proven misconduct did not reach this level was open to him on the evidence, and disclosed no error of law on the face of the record.

Parties
Claimant: Sydney Manning; First Opponent: The District Court of New South Wales; Second Opponent: Peter Norton
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 1992
Procedural Posture
Application for Prerogative Relief (certiorari) / Judgment on Summons for Judicial Review
Outcome
summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Certiorari, Error of Law on Face of Record, Disciplinary Proceedings, Misconduct of Chiropodists, Public Interest, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Professional Discipline Certiorari Error of Law on Face of Record Disciplinary Proceedings Misconduct of Chiropodists Public Interest Judicial Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sydney Manning

Claimant

The District Court of New South Wales

First Opponent

Peter Norton

Second Opponent

Procedural Posture

Application for Prerogative Relief (certiorari) / Judgment on Summons for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether error of law on the face of the record warrants certiorari
  2. 2 Whether the 'misconduct' under Chiropodists Registration Act 1962 s26(1)(d) must be aggravated to render the practitioner unfit in the public interest to practise
  3. 3 Whether the District Court judge properly applied the statutory criterion for disciplinary action against a chiropodist

Ratio Decidendi

Misconduct for disciplinary purposes under s26(1)(d) must be of an aggravated or serious kind that renders a practitioner unfit in the public interest. The District Court judge's assessment that the proven misconduct did not reach this level was open to him on the evidence, and disclosed no error of law on the face of the record.

Court Disposition

summons dismissed

Orders

  • Summons is dismissed with costs.