Edelsten v His Honour Judge Ward

The applicant, Geoffrey Walter Edelsten, sought a stay of orders made by the Medical Tribunal of New South Wales, which were due to take effect the following day and would result in his removal from the roll of practitioners. This application was made pending the hearing of his application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a judgment of the Court of Appeal that had dismissed earlier points raised against the Tribunal's adverse findings. The application for special leave was intended to be heard in Melbourne later that week.

The legal issues before the High Court, as framed by Justice Wilson and accepted by the applicant's counsel, were twofold. Firstly, whether a stay was necessary to preserve the subject-matter of the litigation. Secondly, if a stay was deemed necessary, whether there was a substantial prospect that special leave to appeal would be granted.

Justice Wilson indicated familiarity with the application and the relevant legal principles, referencing the decision in *Jennings v Burgundy*. Counsel for the applicant argued that a stay was clearly necessary to preserve the subject-matter, as the applicant's removal from the roll would mean the appeal's subject-matter would be lost, at least temporarily. The applicant also proposed to provide an undertaking to practice only as an employee, which he contended would mitigate potential issues arising from the charges before the Medical Tribunal.