Joske v Lubrano

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant, Ernest Joske, Registrar of the Dental Board of Victoria, had charged Ernest Vistrani Lubrano with using words at his place of business that implied he was carrying on the practice of dentistry, contrary to section 7 of the Dentists Act 1898 (Vict.). Lubrano, who was neither a legally qualified medical practitioner nor a registered dentist, operated a dental practice at premises where signs displayed "E. W. Dermer, Dentist" and "Teeth Extracted." Lubrano was the sole practitioner at these premises, though the registered dentist, E. W. Dermer, was absent.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether Lubrano had contravened section 7 of the Dentists Act 1898 by using words implying he was carrying on the practice of dentistry, notwithstanding that his name did not appear on the signs and that he informed a witness he was acting for the registered dentist, Mr. Dermer. The Supreme Court had previously held that there was no evidence to support the conviction, finding that Lubrano had effectively administered an "antidote" to any implication from the signs by clarifying his own status.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, reasoned that the offence under section 7 was complete upon the use of words at a place of business that implied the carrying on of dentistry. The Court found that the signs displayed at the premises, coupled with Lubrano's actual practice of dentistry there as the sole practitioner, constituted the use of words implying he was carrying on the practice of dentistry. The Court held that any subsequent statements made by Lubrano to a witness, clarifying his position or stating he was acting for the registered dentist, were irrelevant and could not negate the initial use of the words displayed publicly. The protection afforded by the Act was for the public, and the presence of the signs, combined with Lubrano's practice, created a misleading impression that the Act aimed to prevent.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, reversed the decision of the Supreme Court, and discharged the order nisi to review the conviction. Lubrano was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.