Bahonko v Nurses Board of Victoria

[2005] HCATrans 864

[2005] HCATrans 864

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M72 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

STANISLAWA BAHONKO

Applicant

and

NURSES BOARD OF VICTORIA

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON THURSDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2005, AT 11.01 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   This case is related to matter number M65/2005.  The applicant was a registered nurse.  Her employment at two nursing facilities was terminated due to misconduct and abandonment of work, respectively.  She brought proceedings against both of her former employers in the Federal Court but was unsuccessful in those proceedings.  These proceedings relate to the investigation by the Nurses Board of Victoria into the circumstances of the termination of her employment. 

On 6 September 2004, the Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed Mrs Bahonko’s originating motion which sought a declaration, an injunction and damages.  No cause of action was identified.  The Court held that the relief sought was misconceived because the Nurses Board investigation was still on foot and the formal hearing had not yet been conducted.  On 19 November 2004, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria refused an application for leave to appeal against the orders of 6 September on the basis that the applicant had been unable to demonstrate any error in the reasons of the Supreme Court. 

The applicant’s submissions in these proceedings do not disclose any arguable cause of action.  Many of the matters that she raises are factual and do not provide any basis for a grant of special leave to appeal.  The balance of her allegations are not supported by any evidence and would not have sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal.  The applicant also raises a question of the consistency of the Nurses Act 1993 (Vic) with the Constitution and unspecified international conventions. These arguments have no prospects of success. Accordingly, the application for special leave to appeal must be refused.

Under the power conferred by Rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order that the application is dismissed.  I publish our joint reasons.

AT 11.01 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED