United States legal-change intelligence across legislation, regulation, and case law. Separate data plane, same Zoe spine.

Platform

Legislation
Cases
Ask Zoe
Recently analysed

Company

Pricing
API
X
LinkedIn
Instagram

Jurisdictions

Federal
Supreme Court

District of Columbia

© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.

Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the official source for authoritative text.

Wartski v Medical Practitioners' Board [1999] VSC 385 - VSC 1999 case summary — Zoe

Legislation Cases Absurdities Ask Zoe Graph Pricing

Home/Cases/[1999] VSC 385

VICVSC

Wartski v Medical Practitioners' Board [1999] VSC 385

[1999] VSC 385

Supreme Court of Victoria|1999-10-14|Before: Hampel J

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Supreme Court of Victoria

Decision date

1999-10-14

Before

Hampel J

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Judgment (2 paragraphs)

[1]

For the reasons I have given however I think that it would be premature and inappropriate in the circumstances of this case to hold that the Panel has erred in a way that has at this stage produced a breach of natural justice.

[2]

The application is therefore dismissed with costs.

Parties

Applicant/Plaintiff:

# Wartski

Respondent/Defendant:

Medical Practitioners' Board \[1999\] VSC 385

Legislation Cited (1)

Practice Act 1994

Cases Cited (3)

Before dealing with the specific issues raised by these arguments the following considerations must be underlined. First, the proceedings before the Panel against Dr. Wartski are essentially protective in their nature and not punitive. Despite the possible serious consequences to Dr. Wartski they cannot be equated with criminal proceedings (New South Wales Bar Association v Evatt [1968] HCA 20; [1968] 117 CLR 177 at p.183).

Fourthly, compliance with the rules of natural justice must also depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting and the subject matter that is being dealt with (National Companies and Securities Commission v News Corporation Ltd. [1984] HCA 29; [1984] 156 CLR 296 at pp. 311 - 312).