BOARD DISMISSAL CASE NOT COMPLETED

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28832, 28 February 1959, Page 11

BOARD DISMISSAL CASE NOT COMPLETED

(From Our Own Reporter)

GREYMOUTH, February 27.: The hearing of an action by the Buller Hospital Board against the Attorney-General in which the power of the Minister of Health (Mr Mason) to replace the board with a commissioner is being challenged, had not been completed when the Supreme Court session, before Mr Justice Adams, ended at Greymouth this afternoon. The board is represented by Messrs. R. B. Cooke (Wellington) and B. L. Lovell (Westport). The Attorney-General is represented by the Solicitor-General (Mr H. R. C. Wild, Q.C.) and Mr G. S. Orr. of Wellington. Mr Cooke will conclude his submissions in writing. He said that he still had to deal with the natural justice aspect of the case and to reply to one or two submission points of the Solicitor-General. His Honour said that he had a clear picture of the submissions, to which Mr Cooke replied that he had the complete submissions of the Solicitor-General, but that he had still to deal with the natural justice aspect fully. Decision was reserved pending Mr Cooke’s written submissions.

Mr Orr said the fact that the hearing before the committee was not conducted in accordance with the principles of justice did not invalidate the Minister’s action under section 84 of the Hospitals Act.

There was no principle of law whereby a man should not be held guilty of misconduct without a proper hearing where no property or contractual rights were affected, said Mr Orr. He submitted that all the board members had been deprived of was their power as board members.

In conclusion, Mr Orr submitted that the conduct of the board members on hospital administration had nothing to do with their conduct in private life. Misconduct was not applicable in this case, he submitted. Addressing his Honour, Mr Cooke said that one of the Minister’s counsel had submitted that condemnation for misconduct was not applicable to the circum-' stances of the case. That was precisely what the board said. Nothing short of condemnation for misconduct could warrant such action as that taken by the Minister.

To warrant such action the Minister must be satisfied the board was guilty of a grave dereliction of duty, he said.