Fowell, R. v Ioannou, S

Case [1982] FCA 275

Re: RONALD FOWELL; R.W. COLE; R.J. YOUNG; J.V. MONAGHAN and THE SPECIAL
BROADCASTING SERVICE
And: SIMON IOANNOU (1982) 65 FLR 360
No. G158 of 1982
Administrative Law - Public Service
3 IR 398

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA


NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Bowen C.J.(1), Woodward(2) and Northrop(1) JJ.
CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - Judicial review - Employment in a temporary capacity under an enactment terminated, dispensed with, not renewed or extended - whether a decision subject to judicial review. Legal Relationship - terms and conditions of temporary employment under an enactment.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 ss.3,5.6.

Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 ss.79B-79ZJ

Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979 ss.5,26.

Public Service Act 1922 ss. 7,10,82,82A,82B

Statute Law Revision Act 1981 s.79

Public Service - Administrative law - Temporary employee - Employment in temporary capacity under enactment terminated, dispensed with, not renewed or extended - Whether decision under enactment - Terms and conditions of temporary employment under enactment - Whether employee person aggrieved - Whether denied natural justice - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ss. 3, 5, 6 - Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 (Cth) ss. 79B-79ZJ - Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979 (Cth) ss. 5, 26 - Public Service Act 1922 (Cth), ss. 7, 10, 82, 82A, 82B.

HEADNOTE

The respondent had been offered and had accepted temporary employment with the Special Broadcasting Service, a body corporate, from 18th August, 1980, to 30th June, 1981, pursuant to s. 82(1) and the proviso to s. 82(2) of the Public Service Act 1922. On 23rd July, 1981, he was advised that his temporary employment under the Public Service Act had been extended until 30th June, 1982. On 24th May, 1982, the executive director of the Service wrote to the respondent a letter stating in part:

"You will be aware that the approved fixed term of your temporary employment with the Special Broadcasting Service expires on 30th June, 1982. Under s. 82(4) of the Public Service Act I am required to dispense with the services of a temporary employee upon the expiration of such fixed period.

"The purpose of this letter is to advise you that I do not propose to seek Public Service Board approval to offer you a further period of employment beyond 30th June, 1982."

The respondent sought an order of review of the executive director's decision of 24th May, 1982, that his employment be terminated or dispensed with and not renewed or extended beyond 30th June, 1982, and the decision not to seek the approval of the Public Service Board to the continuation or renewal or extension of his employment beyond 30th June, 1982, and of certain conduct arising from those decisions. At first instance, orders were made declaring that the respondent's employment had not terminated on 30th June, 1982, and setting aside the executive director's decision that the respondent's employment was dispensed with or would expire on 30th June, 1982.

On appeal,

Held: Per Bowen C.J. and…

Continue reading Fowell, R. v Ioannou, S

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Fowell, R. & Ors v. Ioannou, S. [1982] FCA 275 ((1982) 65 FLR 360; 3 IR 398)
Case
[1982] FCA 275
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Fowell, R. v Ioannou, S., the respondent, a public servant, had been employed on a temporary basis under the Public Service Act 1922 (Cth). After her temporary employment was not extended, she sought judicial review of the decision, arguing that it was flawed. The primary judge dismissed her application, but the Full Federal Court was asked to review that decision. The court had to determine whether the decision to terminate the respondent's temporary employment was subject to judicial review and, if so, whether the decision was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair.

The court examined whether the decision to terminate the respondent's temporary employment was justiciable, that is, whether it was subject to judicial review. The court found that the decision was indeed justiciable because it involved the exercise of a statutory power that affected the respondent's legal rights and obligations. The court then considered whether the decision was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair. The court held that the decision was lawful because it was based on the proper interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions. The decision was also rational because it was based on a reasonable and logical basis, and it was procedurally fair because the respondent was given an opportunity to make representations before the decision was made.

Based on the above findings, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the primary judge, and dismissed the respondent's application. The court also ordered the respondent to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal and the application. The appeal was allowed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The order of the Court made on 23 August 1982 be set aside and in lieu thereof order that the application be dismissed.

3. The respondent pay the appellants' costs of the appeal and costs of the application. Appeal allowed 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.