Greenwood v. Winsor & Anor - [2008] QSC 68

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Greenwood v Winsor & Anor [2008] QSC 68

PARTIES:

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

FILE NO/S:

7202/07

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for a Statutory Order of Review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 April 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

4 October, 2007 and 21 February, 2008

JUDGE:

Byrne SJA

ORDER:

Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS FOR REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – BIAS – APPREHENSION OF BIAS – where public official exercising a statutory decision-making power - where Applicant seeks order restraining further participation in disciplinary proceedings on the grounds of apprehended bias.

Public Service Act 1996, s 87, s 88, s 90

Ambrey v Oswin [2005] QCA 112
AWG Group Ltd v Morrison [2006] 1 WLR 1163
Barbosa v Di Meglio [1999] NSWCA 307
Bell Canada v Canadian Telephone Employees Association [2003] 1 SCR 884
Bolkiah v The State of Brunei Darussalam [2007] UKPC 62
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
Flaherty v National Greyhound Racing Club [2005] EWCA Civ 1117
Gascor v Ellicott [1997] 1VR 332
Gillies v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2006] 1 WLR 781
Helljay Investments Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 74 ALJR 68
Helow v Advocate General for Scotland [2007] ScotCS CSIH-5
Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (2002) 210 CLR 438
Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488
Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd [2003] UKHL 35
Minister for Immigration v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507
Minister for Resources; Ex parte Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd [2007] WASCA 175
Mokbel v DPP (Vic) & (Cth) [2007] VSCA 195
Morton v The Transport Appeal Board [2007] NSWSC 1454
Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2007] 3 NZLR 495
R v Abdroikof [2007] UKHL 37
Re Finance Sector Union of Australia; ex parte Illaton Pty Ltd (1992) 66 ALJR 583
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Epeabaka (2001) 206 CLR 128
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57
Re Refugee Review Tribunal; ex parte H (2001) 75 ALJR 982
Smits v Roach (2006) 227 CLR 423
State of Victoria v Psaila and Lamb [1999] VSCA 193,
Stollery v Greyhound Racing Control Board (1972) 128 CLR 509
United States v Holland (9^th Cir, March 17, 2008) No. 06-30258, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 5642
Wewaykum Indian Band v Canada [2003] 2 SCR 259

COUNSEL:

Mr S Keim SC with Mr R Reed for the applicant
Mr C Murdoch for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Kerin & Co Lawyers for the applicant
Minter Ellison for the respondent

Quaneta Greenwood is employed by the State Government as a speech pathologist. As a Public Service officer, she has worked in the Fraser Coast Health Service District (“the District”) of the Department of Health (“Queensland Health”) since 1982. Kerry Winsor, another State public servant, is the District Manager.

By letter…

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 & Anor 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] QSC 68
Decision Date: 14 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Greenwood, the applicant, brought an action against Winsor and another defendant, seeking to restrain further participation in disciplinary proceedings due to an apprehension of bias by the public official exercising statutory decision-making powers. The case was heard in the relevant court, which was tasked with determining whether the grounds for judicial review, specifically concerning procedural fairness and bias, were valid.

The court examined whether the applicant had demonstrated that there was a real likelihood of bias on the part of the public official. The legal issues included whether the public official’s involvement in the disciplinary process constituted an apprehension of bias, and if the procedural fairness was upheld in the proceedings. The applicant argued that the public official’s prior involvement in the matter created an apprehension of bias, which was sufficient to warrant a restraint on further participation in the disciplinary process.

The court carefully considered the evidence and submissions presented. It determined that the public official's actions did not reach the threshold of apprehended bias that would warrant a restraint on further participation in the disciplinary proceedings. The court found that the procedural fairness was maintained, and the public official's involvement did not undermine the integrity of the process. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed.

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] QSC 68
PARTIES:	QUANETA GREENWOOD (applicant) v KERRY WINSOR (first respondent) STATE OF QUEENSLAND (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	7202/07
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application for a Statutory Order of Review
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	14 April 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	4 October, 2007 and 21 February, 2008
JUDGE:	Byrne SJA
ORDER:	Application dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS FOR REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – BIAS – APPREHENSION OF BIAS – where public official exercising a statutory decision-making power - where Applicant seeks order restraining further participation in disciplinary proceedings on the grounds of apprehended bias. Public Service Act 1996, s 87, s 88, s 90 Ambrey v Oswin [2005] QCA 112 AWG Group Ltd v Morrison [2006] 1 WLR 1163 Barbosa v Di Meglio [1999] NSWCA 307 Bell Canada v Canadian Telephone Employees Association [2003] 1 SCR 884 Bolkiah v The State of Brunei Darussalam [2007] UKPC 62 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 Flaherty v National Greyhound Racing Club [2005] EWCA Civ 1117 Gascor v Ellicott [1997] 1VR 332 Gillies v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2006] 1 WLR 781 Helljay Investments Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 74 ALJR 68 Helow v Advocate General for Scotland [2007] ScotCS CSIH-5 Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (2002) 210 CLR 438 Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488 Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd [2003] UKHL 35 Minister for Immigration v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 Minister for Resources; Ex parte Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd [2007] WASCA 175 Mokbel v DPP (Vic) & (Cth) [2007] VSCA 195 Morton v The Transport Appeal Board [2007] NSWSC 1454 Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2007] 3 NZLR 495 R v Abdroikof [2007] UKHL 37 Re Finance Sector Union of Australia; ex parte Illaton Pty Ltd (1992) 66 ALJR 583 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Epeabaka (2001) 206 CLR 128 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57 Re Refugee Review Tribunal; ex parte H (2001) 75 ALJR 982 Smits v Roach (2006) 227 CLR 423 State of Victoria v Psaila and Lamb [1999] VSCA 193, Stollery v Greyhound Racing Control Board (1972) 128 CLR 509 United States v Holland (9^th Cir, March 17, 2008) No. 06-30258, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 5642 Wewaykum Indian Band v Canada [2003] 2 SCR 259
COUNSEL:	Mr S Keim SC with Mr R Reed for the applicant Mr C Murdoch for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Kerin & Co Lawyers for the applicant Minter Ellison for the respondent