Joske v Whamond [1931] HCA 39

Joske v Whamond [1931] HCA 39

A permit under section 68(3) of the Medical Act 1928 (Vict.) does not authorise a person who is not a registered dentist to practise dentistry for reward unless it is under the personal supervision of the employing registered dentist. The respondent did dental work unsupervised and was thus in breach of section 72.

Parties
Informant: Ernest Joske; Defendant: Frederick Charles Whamond
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria to High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Dentistry Regulation, Practice by Unregistered Persons, Permits Under Medical Act, Statutory Interpretation
Health Law Criminal Law Dentistry Regulation Practice by Unregistered Persons Permits Under Medical Act Statutory Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernest Joske

Informant

Frederick Charles Whamond

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria to High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an unregistered person holding a permit may practise dentistry when not under the personal supervision of a registered dentist
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the defendant was authorised by section 68(3) of the Medical Act 1928 (Vict.)
  3. 3 Meaning and scope of authority conferred by a permit under sec. 68 (3) (a)

Ratio Decidendi

A permit under section 68(3) of the Medical Act 1928 (Vict.) does not authorise a person who is not a registered dentist to practise dentistry for reward unless it is under the personal supervision of the employing registered dentist. The respondent did dental work unsupervised and was thus in breach of section 72.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Macfarlan J set aside and order nisi made absolute with costs.
  • Order of Court of Petty Sessions set aside and defendant convicted and fined five pounds with five guineas as costs.