EDELSTEN v WARD & ORS [1989] NSWCA 72

EDELSTEN v WARD & ORS [1989] NSWCA 72

The Tribunal's inquiry was not completed until the determination under s32R. Therefore, since an appeal on a point of law had been filed, s32U(6) mandated that the Tribunal could not continue the inquiry until the appeal was disposed of. The statutory language required such a stay, despite the inconvenience that this process might cause.

Parties
Claimant: Geoffrey Edelsten; Opponent: Ward; Opponent/appellant: David Thomas Richmond; Opponent/appellant: Gordon Messiter
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 1988
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Stay Pending Appeal on Points of Law
Outcome
Application granted. Stay of proceedings before Medical Tribunal ordered until conclusion of the appeal or further order of the Court.
Legal Topics
Medical Practitioners Misconduct, Appeals on Point of Law, Powers and Procedure of Medical Tribunals, Statutory Interpretation
Medical Law Administrative Law Medical Practitioners Misconduct Appeals on Point of Law Powers and Procedure of Medical Tribunals 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey Edelsten

Claimant

Ward

Opponent

David Thomas Richmond

Opponent/appellant

Gordon Messiter

Opponent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Stay Pending Appeal on Points of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal's inquiry was 'completed' when only findings of fact were delivered but the s32R determination remained outstanding
  2. 2 Whether s32U(6) of the Medical Practitioners Act 1938 required the Tribunal to stay proceedings pending the determination of an appeal on a point of law
  3. 3 Interpretation of the statutory scheme for interlocutory appeals under the Medical Practitioners Act 1938

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's inquiry was not completed until the determination under s32R. Therefore, since an appeal on a point of law had been filed, s32U(6) mandated that the Tribunal could not continue the inquiry until the appeal was disposed of. The statutory language required such a stay, despite the inconvenience that this process might cause.

Court Disposition

Application granted. Stay of proceedings before Medical Tribunal ordered until conclusion of the appeal or further order of the Court.

Orders

  • David Thomas Richmond and Gordon Messiter be added as appellants to the appeal and opponents to the notice of motion.
  • Further proceedings upon the inquiry being conducted by the Medical Tribunal stayed until the conclusion of the appeal filed by the claimant or further or other order of the Court.