JOHN HERBERT BANNISTER v MERRILYN WALTON & ANOR [1996] NSWCA 41

JOHN HERBERT BANNISTER v MERRILYN WALTON & ANOR SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

COLE JA 11 March 1996

[1996] NSWCA 41

Cole JA Application has been made by notice of motion brought on behalf of John Herbert Bannister that proceedings be expedited. The proceedings are those numbered 40083/96 in which a declaration is sought that a decision of the Medical Tribunal, having the effect of removing his name from the Register of Medical Practitioners, was null and void.

The decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Court of Appeal, but I am informed that that was only in relation to matters of law.

The basis of the application is set forth in a statement of Dr Mario Benanzio, undated February 1996. In par6 thereof he deposes to a conversation with Dr Ellis. Dr Ellis was a member of the Medical Tribunal which sat on the hearing of the complaints against Dr Bannister.

In essence it is to be contended that in accordance with the principles enunciated in Vakauta v Kell! there is a reasonable apprehension of bias infecting the decision of the Medical Tribunal and accordingly the determination should be quashed.

The first question involves whether this case should be given expedition. The initial decision of the Tribunal was given in April 1992. There were some sixty-one days of hearing time prior to that date, the hearing taking place between September 1991 and March 1992.

A stay was sought on 30 April 1992 and a temporary stay was granted until 31 May 1992.

he appeal was dismissed on 4 June 1993. Leave to appeal was unsuccessfully sought from the High Court on 4 June 1993. In consequence since May 1992 the claimant has been unable to practise his profession as an orthopaedic surgeon. In consequence he has suffered financial hardship and has entered into a deed of arrangement under Pt 10 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.