Cuttler v Browne

Case [2010] QCA 346

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Cuttler v Browne & Anor [2010] QCA 346

PARTIES:

JASON SHANE CUTTLER
(applicant/appellant)
v
J R BROWNE
(first respondent)
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KATHY RYNDERS
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 8074 of 2010
SC No 12422 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave/Judicial Review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 December 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 November 2010

JUDGES:

Holmes, Muir and Fraser JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   The time within which a notice of appeal may be filed be extended to 29 November 2010.

2.   The appeal be dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – HEARING – NOTICE TO PERSONS AFFECTED – second respondent conducted a disciplinary hearing in the absence of applicant police officer – second respondent made adverse findings against applicant and ordered applicant be dismissed from the Queensland Police Service – second respondent had unsuccessfully attempted to effect personal service on applicant – applicant submitted he was denied the right to appear and be heard – applicant submitted that primary judge erred in ruling that there had been no breach of the rules of natural justice – whether primary judge so erred

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – GENERALLY – applicant appealed against second respondent’s decision to the Misconduct Tribunal – Tribunal ordered the appeal be dismissed – applicant sought a statutory order of review of the Tribunal’s decision – primary judge dismissed application – appellant submitted primary judge erred in concluding there was no merit in the service argument – appellant submitted that the Tribunal was obliged to hear and determine all issues before the second respondent irrespective of whether they were within the scope of the grounds of appeal – whether primary judge erred in concluding there was no merit in the service argument – whether Tribunal obliged to hear and determine issues outside the scope of the grounds of appeal

POLICE – INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION – DISCIPLINE AND DISMISSAL FOR MISCONDUCT – second respondent did not comply with service requirements contained in an internal manual – applicant submitted that compliance with the manual was a pre-condition to the exercise of second respondent’s jurisdiction – applicant submitted that primary judge erred in ruling that second respondent acted lawfully in conducting the disciplinary proceeding – whether primary judge so erred

Misconduct Tribunals Act 1997 (Qld) (repealed), s 18, s 20, s 23, s 26
Police Service (Discipline) Regulations 1990 (Qld), s 10(f)
Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), s 4.8, s 4.9, s 4.10
Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld), s 7(3)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 746, r 747, r 765

Aldrich v Ross [2001] 2 Qd R 235; [2000] QCA 501, cited
Australian Securities Commission v Bell (1991) 32 FCR 517; (1991) 104 ALR 125; [1991] FCA 565,…

Continue reading Cuttler v Browne

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Cuttler v Browne [2010] QCA 346
Case
[2010] QCA 346
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cuttler v Browne involves an application for judicial review concerning the dismissal of a police officer from the Queensland Police Service. The applicant, a police officer, was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing conducted by the second respondent. The primary issue in the case was whether the second respondent had violated the principles of procedural fairness by conducting the disciplinary hearing in the absence of the applicant, who had not been personally served with notice of the hearing. The applicant argued that this omission denied him the right to appear and be heard, which is a fundamental aspect of natural justice. The applicant further contended that the primary judge had erred in finding that there was no breach of the rules of natural justice.

The legal issues central to this case included whether the primary judge was correct in ruling that there had been no breach of the rules of natural justice and whether the primary judge erred in concluding that there was no merit in the argument regarding the service of the hearing notice. Additionally, the case examined whether the Misconduct Tribunal was obligated to hear and determine all issues raised by the applicant, regardless of whether they were within the scope of the grounds of appeal. The applicant argued that the Tribunal should have considered the service argument despite it not being formally within the scope of the appeal grounds.

The court's reasoning focused on the requirement for procedural fairness and the obligations under the internal service manual of the Queensland Police Service. The court examined whether non-compliance with the service requirements of the internal manual constituted a jurisdictional error, thereby rendering the disciplinary proceedings unlawful. The primary judge dismissed the application, ruling that the second respondent had acted lawfully. The court found no error in the primary judge's decision, affirming that there was no breach of natural justice and that the Tribunal was not required to consider issues outside the scope of the grounds of appeal.

In summary, the appeal was dismissed with costs, and the time for filing a notice of appeal was extended to 29 November 2010. The court upheld the primary judge's decision, finding no merit in the applicant's arguments regarding the service of notice and the jurisdictional scope of the Tribunal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The time within which a notice of appeal may be filed be extended to 29 November 2010.

2. The appeal be dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.