Barratt v Howard

In the case of Barratt v Howard, the plaintiff, Barratt, sought to challenge the termination of his employment by the defendant, Howard, who was acting as the relevant government officer. The dispute centred on whether Barratt was entitled to procedural fairness before his employment was terminated. This matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The core legal issues that the court had to determine were whether a government officer, who had the statutory authority to terminate employment, was obliged to afford procedural fairness to the employee before making such a decision, and what the content of that procedural fairness might be. The court also needed to consider the implications of the common law principle that Crown servants hold their positions at the pleasure of the Crown, as well as the legislative history and the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

The court examined the statutory framework governing the employment in question, as well as relevant case law and legislative history, to assess whether procedural fairness was required. It found that while the common law principle that Crown servants hold their positions at the pleasure of the Crown was significant, it did not necessarily override statutory provisions that provide for the termination of employment. The court held that the statutory authority to terminate employment did not automatically preclude the need for procedural fairness in certain circumstances. The court also considered the principle of expressio unius, which suggests that the explicit mention of one thing implies the exclusion of others, to determine the content of procedural fairness. Ultimately, the court concluded that the statutory power to terminate employment could only be exercised for cause and that procedural fairness was required before termination could occur. The court emphasised that this cause must be substantial and not trivial.

Following this reasoning, the court found in favour of the plaintiff, Barratt, and held that the termination of his employment was unlawful due to the absence of procedural fairness. The court found that the government officer had not afforded Barratt the opportunity to be heard before terminating his employment, which was a breach of the principles of procedural fairness. Consequently, the court ordered that Barratt's employment be reinstated and that he be compensated for the loss of wages and other benefits he had suffered as a result of the unlawful termination.