Greenwood v Winsor - [2008] QCA 415

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Greenwood v Winsor & Anor [2008] QCA 415

PARTIES:

QUANETA GREENWOOD
(applicant/appellant)
v
KERRY WINSOR
(first respondent)
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 4265 of 2008
SC No 7202 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 September 2008

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Cullinane J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS FOR REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – BIAS – APPREHENSION OF BIAS – appellant employed as speech pathologist by Queensland Health – allegations against appellant that she withdrew services from residential care facility, that she was working inefficiently and inaccurately recording work performed – appellant suspended on full pay and then sent show cause letter outlining allegations – decision on whether termination may be appropriate to be made by first respondent – respondents involved in previous disputes with appellant which resolved through Queensland Industrial Relations Commission processes – first respondent sent emails discussing apparent withdrawal of services from facility – whether there existed a reasonable apprehension that the first respondent might be biased in her determination of the allegations

Public Service Act 1996 (Qld), s 57, s 87, Sch 3
Public Service Act 2008 (Qld), s 236, s 238

Ambrey v Oswin [2005] QCA 112, compared
Antoun v The Queen (2006) 80 ALJR 497; [2006] HCA 2, applied
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63, applied
Greenwood v Winsor & Anor [2008] QSC 68, approved
Ivers v McCubbin & Ors[2005] QCA 200, compared
Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488; [2000] HCA 48, cited
Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 70; [1990] HCA 31, applied
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507; [2001] HCA 17, applied
Re Refugee Review Tribunal; ex parte H (2001) 75 ALJR 982; [2001] HCA 28, considered
R v Abdroikov; R v Green; R v Williamson [2007] 1 WLR 2679; [2007] UKHL 37, considered
Smits v Roach (2006) 227 CLR 423; [2006] HCA 36, applied

Sun v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 81 FCR 71; [1997] FCA 1488, cited
Vakautu v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568; [1989] HCA 44, applied
Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41; [1994] HCA 30, cited

COUNSEL:

S J Keim SC, with R E Reed, for the appellant
L F Kelly SC, with C J Murdoch, for the first and second respondents

SOLICITORS:

Susan Moriarty Solicitors for the appellant
Minter Ellison for the first and second respondents

McMURDO P: Since 1982, Ms Quaneta Greenwood, the appellant, has been employed by the second…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Greenwood v Winsor and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] QCA 415
Decision Date: 19 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Greenwood v Winsor involved an appeal against a decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC). The appellant, employed as a speech pathologist by Queensland Health, was suspended and faced allegations of withdrawing services from a residential care facility, working inefficiently, and inaccurately recording work performed. The first respondent was to decide whether termination was appropriate. The appellant argued that the first respondent had a reasonable apprehension of bias due to previous disputes and communications, which led to the QIRC dismissing the appeal.

The court was tasked with determining whether the first respondent, who had previously been involved in disputes with the appellant and had communicated about the allegations, had a reasonable apprehension of bias that could undermine the fairness of the disciplinary proceedings. The appellant submitted that the first respondent's prior involvement and communications gave rise to a perception of partiality that could prejudice the decision-making process.

The court found that the first respondent's prior involvement in disputes with the appellant did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court considered the communications between the parties and concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the first respondent would not approach the determination of the allegations with an open mind and without bias. The court held that the QIRC's decision was not flawed by any perceived or actual bias on the part of the first respondent. The appeal was therefore dismissed, with costs to be assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed

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.

CITATION:	Greenwood v Winsor & Anor [2008] QCA 415
PARTIES:	QUANETA GREENWOOD (applicant/appellant) v KERRY WINSOR (first respondent) STATE OF QUEENSLAND (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 4265 of 2008 SC No 7202 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	19 December 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 September 2008
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Cullinane J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS FOR REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – BIAS – APPREHENSION OF BIAS – appellant employed as speech pathologist by Queensland Health – allegations against appellant that she withdrew services from residential care facility, that she was working inefficiently and inaccurately recording work performed – appellant suspended on full pay and then sent show cause letter outlining allegations – decision on whether termination may be appropriate to be made by first respondent – respondents involved in previous disputes with appellant which resolved through Queensland Industrial Relations Commission processes – first respondent sent emails discussing apparent withdrawal of services from facility – whether there existed a reasonable apprehension that the first respondent might be biased in her determination of the allegations Public Service Act 1996 (Qld), s 57, s 87, Sch 3 Public Service Act 2008 (Qld), s 236, s 238 Ambrey v Oswin [2005] QCA 112, compared Antoun v The Queen (2006) 80 ALJR 497; [2006] HCA 2, applied Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63, applied Greenwood v Winsor & Anor [2008] QSC 68, approved Ivers v McCubbin & Ors[2005] QCA 200, compared Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488; [2000] HCA 48, cited Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 70; [1990] HCA 31, applied Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507; [2001] HCA 17, applied Re Refugee Review Tribunal; ex parte H (2001) 75 ALJR 982; [2001] HCA 28, considered R v Abdroikov; R v Green; R v Williamson [2007] 1 WLR 2679; [2007] UKHL 37, considered Smits v Roach (2006) 227 CLR 423; [2006] HCA 36, applied Sun v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 81 FCR 71; [1997] FCA 1488, cited Vakautu v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568; [1989] HCA 44, applied Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41; [1994] HCA 30, cited
COUNSEL:	S J Keim SC, with R E Reed, for the appellant L F Kelly SC, with C J Murdoch, for the first and second respondents
SOLICITORS:	Susan Moriarty Solicitors for the appellant Minter Ellison for the first and second respondents