Commissioner of Police v Eaton

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the Commissioner of Police against a decision of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The dispute concerned whether the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales had jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal claim brought by a probationary police officer who had been dismissed by the Commissioner of Police under section 80(3) of the *Police Act 1990* (NSW). The probationary officer contended that their dismissal was harsh, unreasonable, or unjust, and sought to have this reviewed under Part 6 of Chapter 2 of the *Industrial Relations Act 1996* (NSW).

The central legal issue before the High Court was one of statutory interpretation: whether the general provisions of the *Industrial Relations Act 1996* (NSW) regarding unfair dismissal claims applied to a dismissal made under the specific, and more restrictive, power granted to the Commissioner of Police by section 80(3) of the *Police Act 1990* (NSW). This involved determining if Parliament intended the broader unfair dismissal regime to override the specific power to dismiss probationary police officers at any time and without reason, or if the specific provisions of the *Police Act* were intended to prevail.

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the general provisions of the *Industrial Relations Act 1996* (NSW) did not apply to dismissals made under section 80(3) of the *Police Act 1990* (NSW). The Court reasoned that applying the unfair dismissal provisions would create an internal inconsistency within the *Police Act*, as section 80(3) expressly permits dismissal without reason, while the unfair dismissal regime requires consideration of reasons. Applying the principle of statutory construction that general provisions do not override specific provisions where inconsistency would arise, the Court concluded that the specific power under the *Police Act* was intended to be exclusive in this context. The Court therefore set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal and the Industrial Relations Commission, dismissing the probationary officer's claim.