Dorman v Rodgers [1982] HCA 25

High Court of Australia Gibbs C.J. Stephen, Mason, Murphy, Aickin, Wilson and Brennan JJ. Dorman v Rodgers [1982] HCA 25

ORDER Objection to competency allowed with costs. Application for special leave to appeal refused with costs.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

May 11 Gibbs C.J.

The present appeal is brought from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) dismissing an appeal against an order made by the Disciplinary Tribunal under s. 29 of the Medical Practitioners Act 1938 N.S.W., as amended, directing that the name of the appellant be removed from the register of medical practitioners for New South Wales. An objection has been lodged to the competency of the appeal.

It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings "involve directly or indirectly a claim, demand or question to or respecting any property or any civil right amounting to or of the value of $20,000 or upwards" within the meaning of s. 35 (3) (b) of the Judiciary Act, and that an appeal to this Court therefore lies as of right. It was submitted that the proceedings involve the right of the appellant to practise as a medical practitioner, and that the value of that right to him exceeds $20,000. In fact the appellant is employed as a senior medical officer by the State Rail Authority of New South Wales at a salary which is at present $33,761 per annum. He has been employed in that position for some years, and might have expected to remain in it for some years more. However, if his name is not restored to the register, his employment will, it was said, be terminated. It was submitted that the salary which he would have received in that position would have accrued from the exercise of the right to practise and provides a measure of the value of that right.