Dunstan v Higham

The appeal in *Dunstan v Higham* concerned a dispute between the appellant, Dunstan, and the respondents, Higham and others. The primary judge had made findings against the appellant in relation to claims of misfeasance in public office, breach of contract, conspiracy, and interference with contractual relations. The central issue revolved around whether an authorised officer had made a decision not to charge the appellant with misconduct, and whether an internal document constituted evidence of such a decision. The admissibility of the authorised officer's evidence regarding their intention was also a point of contention.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the authorised officer had not made a decision to not charge the appellant with misconduct. This involved assessing whether an internal document was sufficient evidence of such a decision, and whether the primary judge had correctly admitted and considered the authorised officer's evidence concerning their intentions. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether any relevant fact had been deliberately concealed or omitted by the authorised officer, and what the motivation for any such concealment or omission might have been.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland upheld the primary judge's findings. Their Honours reasoned that the primary judge had been entitled to accept the authorised officer's evidence regarding their intention, and that the internal document did not, in itself, demonstrate a concluded decision not to charge the appellant. The court found no error in the admission of the authorised officer's evidence, nor in the primary judge's assessment of whether any deliberate concealment or omission had occurred. The legal principles applied concerned the assessment of evidence, the nature of a concluded decision, and the elements required to establish deliberate concealment or omission in the context of the claims brought.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.