BANNISTER v WALTON [1992] NSWCA 21

BANNISTER v WALTON [1992] NSWCA 21

The application for stay was refused because the Tribunal’s findings, especially on deliberate and sustained fraudulent conduct (complaint 6), demonstrate a marked deficiency in character inconsistent with continued practice. Balancing the possibility of harm to Bannister with the public interest, and taking account of the Tribunal’s detailed judgment and a lack of strong likelihood of success on appeal, it was not appropriate to grant a stay.

Parties
Appellant: John Herbert Bannister; Respondent: Merrilyn Walton
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 1992
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
application for stay refused; expedition of appeal ordered
Legal Topics
Professional Misconduct, Removal From Medical Register, Application for Stay, Character Requirements for Practice
Medical Law Professional Discipline Professional Misconduct Removal From Medical Register Application for Stay Character Requirements for Practice

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Herbert Bannister

Appellant

Merrilyn Walton

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay should be granted of the order removing a medical practitioner’s name from the register pending appeal
  2. 2 Weight to be given to harm to patients, loss of reputation, and public interest in good character of practitioners
  3. 3 Likelihood of success on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The application for stay was refused because the Tribunal’s findings, especially on deliberate and sustained fraudulent conduct (complaint 6), demonstrate a marked deficiency in character inconsistent with continued practice. Balancing the possibility of harm to Bannister with the public interest, and taking account of the Tribunal’s detailed judgment and a lack of strong likelihood of success on appeal, it was not appropriate to grant a stay.

Court Disposition

application for stay refused; expedition of appeal ordered

Orders

  • Application for stay refused.
  • Order in principle for expedition of the hearing of the appeal.