Re: HEATHER CATHARINE DOUGLAS And: ROBERT NORMAN ALLEN and RAY JOLLIFFE; JAMES CHARLES VENIS; EWAN EDWIN HAZELL; DOROTHY PATRICIA ARNO; ROBERT VIRGONA and PHILLIP JOHN IBBOTSON; WAYNE KENNETH BRADLEY and PATRICIA HACKETT (1984) 1 FCR 287 No. ACT G94 of 1983 Administrative Law 8 IR 288
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION Morling J.(1)
CATCHWORDS
Administrative law - judicial review - Commonwealth Teaching Service - Australian Capital Territory Technical and Further Education component - application for Master Teacher classification - recommendation by Eligibility Committee and Review Committee - adoption of recommendation by Director of service - whether decisions subject to judicial review - extension of time to institute proceedings - whether rules of natural justice apply to decisions - legitimate expectations - procedure for applications set down in Handbook - expectation that application to be dealt with in broad conformity with Handbook - whether breach of rules of natural justice - necessity for oral hearing or further enquiries
The entitlement of an officer of the Commonwealth Teaching Service to seek reclassification as a recognition of her teaching expertise constituted no more than an opportunity to seek such reclassification and did not give rise to a legitimate expectation that the reclassification would occur. The officer did however have a reasonable expectation that her application would be dealt with in accordance with the published procedures for the determination of such applications and fairly and properly.
The requirement of fairness was not contravened either by the failure of those determining her application to exhaustively investigate conflict between the officer and her superiors where no charge of misconduct or complaint had been made against the officer or by the fact that she was not given a hearing in person at each stage of the determination.
Ansell v. Wells (1982) 43 A.L.R. 41; Attorney-General Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu (1983) 2 W.L.R. 735; Cole v. Cunningham (1983) 49 A.L.R. 123; F.A.I. Insurances Ltd v. Winneke (1982) 56 A.L.J.R. 388; Heatley v. Tasmanian Racing and Gaming Association (1977) 137 C.L.R. 487; Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1963) 113 C.L.R. 475; Salemi v. Mackellar (No. 2) (1977) 137 C.L.R. 396; Schmidt v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs (1969) 2 Ch. D. 149; R. v. Amphlett (1915) 2 K.B. 223; R. v. Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 C.L.R. 546; R. v. Whalley; Ex parte Bordin and Co. (1972) V.R. 748, referred to.
HEARING
Sydney, 1984, February 22, 23; April 3. #DATE 3:4:1984
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 Douglas v Allen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Douglas, Heather Catharine v Allen, Robert Norman & Ors [1984] FCA 75 ((1984) 1 FCR 287; 8 IR 288)
Case
[1984] FCA 75
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Douglas brought an action against Allen seeking judicial review of decisions made regarding his application for Master Teacher classification within the Commonwealth Teaching Service, Australian Capital Territory Technical and Further Education component. The application was dismissed by the court.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the decisions in question were subject to judicial review and, if so, whether they were made in accordance with the rules of natural justice. Additionally, the court had to consider whether there was a legitimate expectation that Douglas's application would be dealt with in broad conformity with the procedure set out in the service's Handbook. The necessity for an oral hearing or further enquiries also came into question.
The court found that the decisions were not subject to judicial review as they were not administrative decisions within the meaning of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The court held that the rules of natural justice did not apply to the decisions as they were not administrative in nature. Furthermore, there was no legitimate expectation that Douglas's application would be dealt with in conformity with the Handbook. The court concluded that no breach of the rules of natural justice occurred, and there was no necessity for an oral hearing or further enquiries.
The court dismissed Douglas's application, affirming that the decisions made regarding his application for Master Teacher classification were not subject to judicial review and did not contravene the rules of natural justice.