Dental Board of Victoria v Denison [1928] HCA 26; (1928) 41 CLR 102 (23 August 1928)

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

The Dental Board of Victoria Respondent, Appellant; and Denison Applicant, Respondent.

H C of A

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria.

23 August 1928

Knox C.J., Isaacs, Higgins and Gavan Duffy JJ.

Owen Dixon K.C. (with him Burgess), for the appellant.

Hotchin, for the respondent.

Owen Dixon K.C., in reply.

The Court delivered the following judgment:—

Aug. 23

Knox C.J.,

Isaacs, Higgins and Gavan Duffy JJ.

In this case special leave to appeal was granted solely for the purpose of deciding whether the construction placed by Irvine C.J. upon the words of sec. 14 (1) (b) of the Medical (Dentists) Act 1927 was correct. The learned Chief Justice of Victoria held that the words "entered on a definite course of training," in that sub-section were satisfied by the applicant "entering on a defined and continuous course of practical instruction in dental surgery and dentistry." In the opinion of this Court this interpretation of the words is correct. In this view the Court thinks there is no occasion to inquire whether the provision so interpreted was properly applied in this case and that the proper course to take is to rescind the order granting special leave to appeal. The appellant is to pay the costs of the appeal pursuant to its undertaking.

Higgins J.

There is nothing in the section to limit the words "definite course of training ... to acquire a knowledge of dental surgery" to a course of training in the University or other scholastic or theoretical institution: a definite course of practical training would be sufficient for the section. But I desire to guard myself from being supposed to countenance any such idea as that a course of training as dentist's mechanic would be sufficient.

The proper order is, as stated by the Chief Justice, to rescind the order granting leave to appeal.

Order granting special leave to appeal rescinded. Appellant to pay costs pursuant to its undertaking.

Solicitor for the appellant, Joske & Burbridge, Melbourne, by H. Smith.

Solicitors for the respondent, R. W. Dickinson & Son, Melbourne, by Vindin & Littlejohn.