Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin

The Attorney-General of New South Wales appealed to the High Court of Australia against a declaration made by the Court of Appeal concerning the appointment of a former stipendiary magistrate to a new judicial office. The dispute arose when the respondent, a stipendiary magistrate of abolished inferior courts, was not appointed as a magistrate of the newly established Local Courts, despite a policy that suggested such appointments would be made unless the applicant was unfit for judicial office. The respondent argued that this decision was made without affording him natural justice.

The High Court was required to determine whether the respondent was entitled to a reconsideration of his application for appointment as a magistrate. This involved considering whether the initial decision to not appoint him was vitiated by a failure to accord natural justice, and if so, on what basis his application should be reconsidered, particularly in light of a subsequent change in the appointment policy which mandated that applicants be judged on merit. The Court also had to consider the effect of the *Local Courts Act 1982* (N.S.W.) on the appointment process.

The High Court reasoned that the initial policy created an expectation that existing stipendiary magistrates would be appointed to the new courts unless specific grounds for their exclusion existed, and that the respondent was entitled to know the case against him and to be heard before a decision was made. The Court found that this procedural fairness had not been afforded. While acknowledging the subsequent change in policy to a merit-based assessment, the Court held that the respondent was entitled to have his application considered under the policy that was in effect at the time of the initial decision, or under the current policy if that was more favourable to him, but crucially, that his application must be considered.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the declaration of the Court of Appeal. In its place, the High Court declared that the appellant was bound to consider the respondent's application for appointment as a magistrate dated 12 December 1983 in accordance with the judgment of the High Court. The question of costs in the courts below was reserved.