Re: RITA HAMBLIN And: PETER DUFFY, WILLIAM WHITE, MARK AARONS, PROMOTIONS APPEAL BOARD and AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION (1981) 55 FLR 228 No. G5 of 1981 Administrative Law
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION Lockhart J.(1)
CATCHWORDS
Administrative Law - officer of A.B.C. provisionally promoted to vacant position - more senior officer applied for same position - appeal by more senior officer to Promotions Appeal Board alleging equal efficiency and seniority disallowed - whether there is a decision of the Promotions Appeal Board in the absence of any member - whether the rules of natural justice apply to the proceedings of the Promotions Appeal Board - construction of Australian Broadcasting Commission (Staff) Regulations r. 11 (2).
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 (Cth.) s. 16
Australian Broadcasting Commission (Staff) Regulations r. 11 (1),(2)
Broadcasting and Television Act, 1942 (Cth.) Div. 2 Pt. III; ss. 43 (3), 45, 46, 47, 48, 48(A), 49 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), 50 (1), (2), (4), (5), 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, and 58.
Administrative Law - A.B.C. officer applied for appointment as senior reporter - Officer junior to applicant provisionally promoted to position - Appeal by applicant to Promotions Appeal Board - Application of rules of natural justice to proceedings of Board - Evidence taken by Board not fully disclosed to applicant - Failure to hear witnesses recommended by applicant to meet criticisms of her by Board - Termination of Board's hearing by chairman pursuant to Australian Broadcasting Commission (Staff) Regulations, reg. 11 (2) - Construction of reg. 11 (2) - Dismissal of appeal - Constitution of Board by three members - Walkout by member prior to determination - Whether determination was decision of Board - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), s. 16 - Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 (Cth), Pt III, Divn 2 - Australian Broadcasting Commission (Staff) Regulations, reg. 11 (1), (2).
HEADNOTE
The applicant was employed by the fifth respondent, the Australian Broadcasting Commission (the A.B.C.). During her employment with the A.B.C. a vacancy arose in the position of senior reporter and the applicant applied for the position. However, an officer junior to the applicant was provisionally promoted to the position. The applicant appealed against the other officer's promotion pursuant to s. 49 (2) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 to the fourth respondent, the Promotions Appeal Board, which comprised the first, second and third respondents. On 28th November, 1980, the hearing began before the Board with the applicant giving evidence on that day. The Board convened on three subsequent occasions with the final hearing date being 22nd December, 1980, at which time the applicant also gave evidence. The applicant was not present during the Board's hearing otherwise than during her own interviews. The applicant was informed of evidence critical of her and in her second interview she nominated certain officers who could give evidence about the matters raised.
After the applicant's second interview discussions took place between the…
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 Hamblin v Duffy (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hamblin, R. v. Duffy, P. & Ors [1981] FCA 122 ((1981) 55 FLR 228)
Case
[1981] FCA 122
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Hamblin v Duffy (No 2) involved a dispute regarding the provisional promotion of Peter Cave to the position of Senior Reporter (Radio Public Affairs) within the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC). The respondent, Duffy, who was more senior than Cave, appealed to the Promotions Appeal Board, claiming equal efficiency and seniority. However, the appeal was disallowed, leading Duffy to seek judicial review. The court had to determine whether the Promotions Appeal Board made a decision in the absence of any member and whether the rules of natural justice applied to its proceedings.
The central legal issues were whether there was a valid decision made by the Promotions Appeal Board and if the rules of natural justice were applicable to the board's proceedings. The court examined the relevant regulations, particularly regulation 11(2) of the Australian Broadcasting Commission (Staff) Regulations, to ascertain the composition and decision-making processes of the Board. It was crucial to establish if the Board could function and make decisions without a quorum, and if not, whether the appeal was properly disallowed.
The court ruled that the Promotions Appeal Board's decision was invalid because it was made in the absence of a member, and thus, it did not constitute a proper decision. The Board, as per the regulations, required a quorum to make decisions, and without it, any decision was ineffective. Furthermore, the court held that the rules of natural justice applied to the Board's proceedings, requiring fair hearing principles to be observed. Consequently, the court set aside the Board's decision, mandated the Board to hear the appeal, and adjourned the matter for further proceedings.
The final orders included setting aside the Promotions Appeal Board's decision, directing the Board to hear the appeal, and adjourning the matter to allow for evidence and arguments. Additionally, each party was granted liberty to apply for costs on two days' notice. This decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the necessity for decision-makers to adhere to established rules and regulations.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.The decision of the Promotions Appeal Board that the appeal of the applicant to the Promotions Appeal Board pursuant to s.49 (2) of the Broadcasting and Television Act (1942) against the provisional promotion of an officer of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, namely Peter Cave, to the position of Senior Reporter (Radio Public Affairs) position No. 830 be disallowed, be set aside;
2. The Promotions Appeal Board exercise its jurisdiction by hearing and determining the applicant's appeal;
3. The application is adjourned to a date to be fixed to hear evidence and argument, if any, on costs; and
4. Each party be at liberty to apply on two day's notice.