Hill v Green

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.