Mann v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria & Anor

[2004] VSCA 148

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Medical practitioners
4. › Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria
5. › Complaint investigation
6. › Decision not to proceed to hearing
7. › Whether Board had power to send letters criticising practitioner's language
8. › Whether letters constituted exercise of statutory power
9. › Medical Practice Act 1994 (Vic), ss 24, 25, 66
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Time limits
4. › Extension of time
5. › Special circumstances
6. › Whether special circumstances established for nearly six-year delay
7. › Whether error in decision under review can constitute special circumstance
8. › Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 1996 (Vic), O 56, r 56.02(3)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Natural justice
3. › Procedural fairness
4. › Fair hearing rule
5. › Warning rule
6. › Whether statutory body required to afford hearing before making adverse criticism
7. › Whether failure to raise procedural fairness below precluded reliance on appeal
1. Administrative Law
2. › Prerogative relief
3. › Discretionary nature
4. › Utility of relief
5. › Delay
6. › Whether relief would be refused on discretionary grounds notwithstanding breach of natural justice

Quick Take

The phrase 'special circumstances' in rule 56.02(3) is deliberately flexible and should not be given an exhaustive definition. Whether error in the decision under review can constitute a special circumstance was left open, qualifying the absolute exclusion stated in Denysenko v Dessau. A procedural fairness argument not raised before the judge below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Even where a breach of natural justice is arguable, prerogative relief may be refused on discretionary grounds where there has been extreme delay and the outcome would not have been different.