RE: THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY And: ARTHUR LEE BURNS (1982) 64 FLR 166 No. G18 of 1982 Administrative Law
COURT
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION Bowen C.J.(1), Lockhart(1) and Sheppard(2) JJ.
CATCHWORDS
Administrative Law - Judicial Review - appeal from order requiring University to furnish reasons for decision terminating professor's appointment on ground of permanent incapacity - whether decision made 'unde an enactment' (Australian National University Act 1946) or under contract of engagement.
Administrative Law - Judicial review - Termination of professorial appointment by council of university on ground of permanent incapacity - Whether respondent entitled to request statement of reasons for decision - Appeal from decision of single judge that respondent was entitled to statement requested - Whether decision was "of an administrative character made . . . under an enactment" - Whether decision was made under contract of engagement - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), ss. 3, 13, Sched. 2 - Australian National University Act 1946 (Cth), ss. 4, 23, 26A, 27, 28 - Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s. 33(4).
HEADNOTE
On 13th November, 1981, the council of the Australian National University (the university) resolved to terminate the appointment of the respondent as a professor of that university on the ground that he was permanently incapacitated from performing his duties.
On 23rd November, 1981, the respondent requested a statement from the university pursuant to the provisions of s. 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (the Judicial Review Act) containing, inter alia, the reasons for the decision to terminate the respondent's appointment.
On 4th December, 1981, the university notified the respondent that, as a matter of law, he was not entitled to make the request. The respondent sought an order pursuant to s. 13(4A)(b) of the Judicial Review Act declaring that he was entitled to make the request.
On 27th April, 1982, a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia made the order requested by the respondent and the university appealed from that judgment to the Full Court. The university contended that the decision of the council to dismiss the respondent was not "a decision of an administrative character made . . . under an enactment", namely the Australian National University Act 1946 (the University Act) within the meaning of that expression in s. 3 of the Judicial Review Act. The university further contended that the decision of the council was made, not under the University Act, but under a contract of service entered into on 9th December, 1966, between the university and the respondent.
Held: (1) The appeal would be allowed.
(2) The respondent was not entitled to make the request made by him in his letter dated 23rd November, 1981, to the appellant.
(3) The rights and duties of the parties to the contract of engagement arose from…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Australian National University v Burns
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Australian National University v. Burns, A.L. [1982] FCA 207 ((1982) 64 FLR 166)
Case
[1982] FCA 207
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Australian National University (ANU) appealed against a decision that required it to provide reasons for terminating a professor's appointment due to permanent incapacity. The case was before the High Court of Australia. The primary issue was whether the decision was made under the Australian National University Act 1946 or under a contractual engagement, which would determine whether the decision was subject to judicial review.
The Court held that the decision was made under the contractual engagement between the parties rather than under the enactment. Therefore, the decision was not subject to judicial review, and the requirement to provide reasons was not applicable. The Court found that the respondent was not entitled to make the request for reasons. The appeal was allowed, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs.
The Court's decision was based on the nature of the relationship between the university and the professor, which was contractual rather than statutory. The Court found that the contract did not provide for the provision of reasons for termination, and therefore, the respondent's request for reasons was not valid. The Court's decision clarified the scope of judicial review in relation to decisions made under contractual engagements and the importance of the terms of the contract in determining the rights and obligations of the parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. It be declared that the respondent was not entitled to make the request made by him in his letter to the appellant dated 23 November 1981.
3. The respondent pay to the appellants its costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before Ellicott J.
The Court certified that a certificate under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 would be available to the respondent.