EDELSTEN v HIS HONOUR JUDGE WARD QC [1988] NSWCA 41

EDELSTEN v HIS HONOUR JUDGE WARD QC [1988] NSWCA 41

The application for an injunction should be made to the High Court where public law is invoked and relief beyond a stay is sought; consistent with Sibuse Pty Ltd v Shaw (No 2), no stay should be granted by the Court of Appeal in this case.

Parties
Claimant: Dr Geoffrey Edelsten; Respondent: His Honour Judge Ward QC
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 1988
Procedural Posture
Motion / Application for Interim Relief Pending Application for Special Leave to Appeal
Outcome
motion dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Interim Injunctions, Special Leave Applications
Practice and Procedure Public Law Stay of Proceedings Interim Injunctions Special Leave Applications

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Geoffrey Edelsten

Claimant

His Honour Judge Ward QC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion / Application for Interim Relief Pending Application for Special Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal should grant an injunction restraining the Medical Tribunal from further hearing pending application to the High Court
  2. 2 Inutility of a stay as ordered by the Court
  3. 3 Whether provision of interim injunction should be sought from the High Court

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an injunction should be made to the High Court where public law is invoked and relief beyond a stay is sought; consistent with Sibuse Pty Ltd v Shaw (No 2), no stay should be granted by the Court of Appeal in this case.

Court Disposition

motion dismissed with costs

Orders

  • motion dismissed with costs