Bahonko v Nurses Board of Victoria (motion)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 7752 of 2004

STANISLAVA BAHONKO	Plaintiff
v
NURSES BOARD OF VICTORIA	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 September 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 September 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Bahonko v Nurses Board of Victoria (motion)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 368

---

Registered nurse – Investigation into professional conduct – Nurses Board – Nurses Act 1993 – Claim for declaration, injunction and damages premature, misconceived and deficient in form – Motion dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
The Plaintiff appeared in person
For the Defendant	Russell Kennedy

HIS HONOUR:

I consider that the originating motion itself is both premature and misconceived. Like the summons also filed on 25 August 2004, the orders sought by the motion are expressed thus:

"1)      Declaration
2)       Injunction
3)       Damages."

So far as the motion seeks like relief as the summons, for the reasons I have stated in relation to the summons, the motion also is misconceived and premature. So far as the motion seeks other relief, it is misconceived and premature in substance and is deficient in form.

The appropriate course is for the Nurses Board investigation to proceed. Its determination will be made on or after 27 September 2004. I state again my hope that Ms Bahonko will take advantage of that hearing and attend it and put her submissions and evidence, if she wishes to call any, before that Board. That is, of course, a matter for her. At the determination of the Board, whenever that may be, if it is unsatisfactory to Ms Bahonko, she then has, as Dr Hanscombe has observed, a number of avenues of appeal and that is the appropriate time to exercise them. In the meantime, I consider that the originating motion is misconceived and premature and is unjustified, and I dismiss it also.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a registered nurse, the first respondent, against the Nurses Board of Victoria and its two members, the second and third respondents. The nurse sought a declaration, injunction and damages, claiming that the investigation into his professional conduct was unlawful, null and void, and that the board had no jurisdiction to conduct such an investigation. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the claim was premature, misconceived, and deficient in form. The court had to determine if the plaintiff could seek judicial review before the investigation was concluded, and if the claim was adequately substantiated. The court also had to consider if the plaintiff's allegations of jurisdictional error were made out.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was premature, misconceived, and deficient in form. The court held that the plaintiff could not seek judicial review before the investigation was concluded, and that his claim was not adequately substantiated. The court also found that the plaintiff's allegations of jurisdictional error were not made out, as the investigation was within the jurisdiction of the board. The court held that the plaintiff's claim was an attempt to have the court interfere with the internal processes of the board, which was not permissible. The court found that the claim was misconceived and premature, and that the plaintiff had not made out a case for the relief sought.

As a result of the court's findings, the motion was dismissed with costs. The court held that the plaintiff's claim was an abuse of process, and that the defendants were entitled to costs. The court also found that the plaintiff's claim was misconceived, and that the defendants were entitled to an order for costs on an indemnity basis. The court dismissed the motion and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the motion on an indemnity basis. The court held that the plaintiff's claim was an abuse of process, and that the defendants were entitled to costs. The court found that the plaintiff's claim was misconceived, and that the defendants were entitled to an order for costs on an indemnity basis.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established