Hill v Green

Case [1999] NSWCA 477


Reported Decision: 48 NSWLR 161

New South Wales


Court of Appeal

CITATION: Hill v Green; Jarvis v Buckley; Wood v Buckley; Young v Buckley [1999] NSWCA 477
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40224/98; 40225/98; 40226/98; 40724/98
HEARING DATE(S): 22 June 1999
JUDGMENT DATE:
22 December 1999

PARTIES :


Donald Hill (Cl)
v
George Green (Op)

Maureen Jarvis (Cl)
v
Steve Buckley (Op)

Walter Henry Wood (Cl)
v
Steve Buckley (Op)

Brian Young (Cl)
v
Steve Buckley (Op)
JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Mason P at 83; Sheller JA at 87; Beazley JA at 110; Fitzgerald JA at 111
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 30105/97
30104/97
30121/97
30057/98
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Grove J, Dunford J
COUNSEL: Cl: C Porter QC, J Bishop, P M Lane
Op: P Menzies QC, T Anderson
SOLICITORS: Cl: MacMahon Associates
Op(1,2,3): I V Knight
Op(4): Adrian Murphy (Green)
CATCHWORDS: Administrative Law; procedural fairness/natural justice; teachers' disciplinary charges found proven without hearing/inquiry; question of whether regulatory scheme constituted a "code"; "curing" effect of right of appeal; perverse fact-finding and error of law.
ACTS CITED: Teaching Services Act 1980
Interpretation Act 1987
Government and Related Employees' Appeal Tribunal Act 1980
Industrial Relations Act 1996
Workers Compensation Act 1926
Compensation Court Act 1984
CASES CITED:
Kioa v West 159 CLR 550
Annetts v McCann 170 CLR 596
Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission 175 CLR 564
Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin 170 CLR 1
Durham Holdings Pty Ltd v NSW [1999] NSWCA 324
Matkevich v NSW Technical & Further Education Commission (No.3) (Court of Appeal, 3 February 1996, unreported)
Smith v Allan (1993) 31 NSWLR 52
Vanmeld Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council (1999) 46 NSWLR 78
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond 170 CLR 321
Bruce v Cole (1998) 45 NSWLR 163
Minister for Immigration v Eshetu (1999) 73 ALJR 746
Minister for Immigration v Epeabaka (1998) 84 FCR 411
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Baba v Parole Board of NSW (1986) 5 NSWLR 338
Murray v Legal Services Commission [1999] NSWCA 70
Twist v Randwick Municipal Council (1976) 136 CLR 106
R v Marks; ex parte Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation 147 CLR 471
Oates v Attorney-General (Cth) (1998) 156 ALR 1
Johns v ASC 178 CLR 408
Macksville v Mayze (1987) 10 NSWLR 708
Lisafa Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police (1988) 15 NSWLR 1
Waitakere City Council v Lovelock (1997) 2 NZLR 385
Fares Rules Meat v Australian Meat & Livestock Corp (1990) 96 ALR 153
Abebe v The Commonwealth (1999) 162 ALR 1
DECISION: See orders

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
                      CA 40224/98, 40225/98, 40226/98, 40724/98
                      ALD 30105/97, 30104/97, 30121/97, 30057/98
                      SPIGELMAN CJ
                      MASON P
                      SHELLER JA
                      BEAZLEY JA
                      FITZGERALD JA
                      WEDNESDAY 22 DECEMBER 1999

Donald HILL v George GREEN
Maureen JARVIS v Steve BUCKLEY
Walter Henry WOOD v Steve BUCKLEY
Brian YOUNG v Steve BUCKLEY

JUDGMENT

1   SPIGELMAN CJ: The facts and issues are set out…

Continue reading Hill v Green

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hill v Green [1999] NSWCA 477
Case
[1999] NSWCA 477
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Hill v Green* concerned an appeal to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales regarding disciplinary charges brought against a teacher. The teacher, Mr Green, had been found guilty of certain charges by the Director-General of Education, and subsequently, the Disciplinary Appeal Board upheld these findings. Mr Hill, a member of the Disciplinary Appeal Board, sought a declaration that the Board's decision was invalid.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the regulatory scheme governing teachers' disciplinary proceedings constituted a "code" that excluded the common law duty of procedural fairness, and whether the right of appeal to the Disciplinary Appeal Board had a "curing" effect on any initial procedural unfairness. The Court also considered whether the Board's fact-finding was perverse or constituted an error of law.

The Court of Appeal held that the regulatory scheme did not constitute a code that excluded the common law duty of procedural fairness. It was determined that the Disciplinary Appeal Board, in upholding the findings without conducting its own inquiry or hearing, had failed to afford Mr Green procedural fairness. The Court found that the right of appeal did not operate to "cure" this initial breach of natural justice, as the Board had not undertaken a proper review of the evidence or given Mr Green an opportunity to be heard. The Court concluded that the Board's decision was vitiated by a failure to afford procedural fairness and was therefore invalid.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders

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.