Bahonko v Nurses Board of Victoria (motion)

[2004] VSC 368

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: 

1. 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.

1. 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.