Hurt v Rossall

[1982] FCA 205

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

1

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

S o . ACT G35 o f 1 9 8 1

D I S T R I C T R E G I S T R Y

-l 1

GENERAL D I V I S I O N 5

ROBERT CHARLES MOSTYN HURT

A p p l i c a n t

TBRENCE	RICHARD	ROSSRLL,	DAVID
FREDERICK	BRUCE	and JOlIN	ARTHUK
CAPOKN

F i r s t n a m e d R e s p o n d e n t s

R O B E R T W I L L I h N C O L E , ROBERT JOHN YOUNG

and JOI lN VINCENT blOh'AGHAN

S e c o n d n a m c d R e s p o n d c n t s

ORDER

JUDGE :  Fox J.

DATE @I: ORDER: 29 S e p t e m b e r 1 9 S 2

WIIERE >t\IlE : C a n b e r r a

... -

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. T h e a p p l i c a t i o n be dismissed.

IV THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTMLIA )

'I

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	5
1 No. ACT G38 o f 1951
DISTRICT	REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

ROBERT CIIARLES Flos-rYN HURT

Applicant

TERENCE R I C H A R D ROSSALL, DAVID

FKEDEKICK BRUCE and J O H N AKTHUR

CAPORN

Firstnamed Respondents

ROBERT WILLIAM COLE, ROBERT J O H K YOIJNG

and J O H N VIKCEKT MONAGHAN

Secondnamcd Respondcnts

Coram. Fox J .

REASOKS FOR JUDGMENT

This i s an application under s .5 o f t h e

Aclminis t r a t i v e D e c i s i o n s ( J u d i c i a l Revicw) Act 1 9 7 7 (" th e

J u d i c i a l Review Act") . The a p p l i c a n t i s an oiC1cer o f

t he Commonwealth Pub l i c Se rv ice . The f i r s tnamcd

respondents consti tute the Promotlons Appeal Committee

.Cor	t he Aus t r a l i an Cap i t a l Tc r r i t o ry ( " the	Committcc")	,
which	was	cs tab l i shed undcr the Publ ic Serv ice Act	1 9 2 2

("the .kt"), and the secondnamed respondents are the

membcrs 01 the Publ ic Serv ice Board .

The c a s e r e l a t e s t o t h c c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n w h l c h

thc	p rovis jona l	appoin tmcnt	o f	the	app l i can t	t o a	p o s i t i o n
of	Engineer	Class	V was	c a n c e l l e d and	a	Mr.	Godwin
a p p o i n t e d	t o	t h a t	p o s i t i o n .	The	appl icant	had	occupied

a pos i t ion , s ince 1973, des igna ted Chief Execut ive OfCiccr

Class 11, i n the Department of Defence, Navy O f f i c e .

In May 1 9 8 0 , pu r suan t t o Pub l i c Se rv ice Regu la t ion 6 ,

he i n i t i a t e d , a n d t h e r e a f t e r l a r g e l y f o s t e r e d , a n

a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e P u b l i c S e r v i c e B o a r d t o r e - c l a s s i f y

t h e p o s i t i o n	he occup ied	t o	t ha t	o f	Engineer	Class	V .
This	change	was	e f f e c t e d i n A p r i l	1 9 8 1 .	There was	a	new

du ty	s t a t emen t ,	i n	te rms	qu i te	a	b i t	d i f f e r e n t	f r o m t h o s e
o f	t h e	d u t y	s t a t e m e n t	f o r	t h c	p r e v i o u s	p o s i t i o n ,	b u t

under which the du t ics to be pcrformcd were in l-act

c l o s e l y s i m l l a r . The r e - c l a s s i f i e d p o s i t i o n c a r r l e d a n

i n c r e a s e i n s a l a r y o f $ 1 , 5 0 0 . Thc a p p l i c a n t was promoted

p r o v i s l o n a l l y t o t h e ncw p o s i t i o n , w i t h o u t any aclvertlse-

mcnt i n v i t i n g o t h e r s t o a p p l y .

Wi th in t he t ime p re sc r ibed , a Mr. Godwjn and a

Mr. Fa l lon appea led aga ins t t he p rov i s iona l p romot ion .

The appeal of Mr. Godwin was on the ground of "superior

e f l - ic icncy" ( S . 5 0 ( 6 ) o f t h e A c t ) . Thc Committee heard

t h e a p p l i c a n t , and s e p a r a t e l y h e a r d Mr. Godwin, on allowed 1 0

September 1 9 6 1 and on t h e same day unanimously

the appea l . The Chairman o f t h e Committee (Mr. Rossa l l ) ,

a c t i n g a s a d e l e g a t e o f t h e P u b l l c S e r v i c e Board ( s e e s.lG

01	the Act ) ,	thereupon cancc	l	lcd	the p rovis iona l	p romot ion
o f	t h c a p p l i c a n t	and	promoted	Mr.	Godwin	t o t h e v a c a n t

o f f i c e .

The a p p l i c a n t s u b m i t s , i n r e l i a n c c upon s .5

(1) (a ) o f t h e J u d i c i a l Review .4ct, t h a t t h e r e was a

d e n i a l o f n a t u r a l j u s t l c c and a l s o t h a t t h e Commlttee

f a i l e d t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t r e l e v a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , -

s . S ( l ) ( c ) , s . 5 ( 2 ) ( b ) o f t h c J u d i c i a l Review .Act. The

decis ion chal lcnged under the Act i s t h a t o f the Committce,

a l though i n t h e h e a r l n g b c f o r e me counse l €o r t he

Committee submitted to such order as the Cour t might

make, and t h e c a s c s u p p o r t i n g t h e d e c i s i o n was p r e s e n t e d

on behal f o f the Publ ic Serv ice Board . Mr. Godwin i s no t

a p a r t y , a n d , a l t h o u g h I n t h c l i g h t of the grounds O F t h e

a p p l i c a t i o n	I	r a i s e d t h e m a t t e r ,	no	a p p l i c a t i o n h a s	b e e n
made	tha t	he	should	be	added .

I t i s n o t d i s p u t e d Hamblin v Duffy (KO. 2 ) t h a t s . S ( l ) ( a ) o f t h e J u d i c i a l

Revlcw Act app l i e s (SCC ( 1 9 5 1 )

37 :ZLR 2 9 7 ; Finch v Goldstcin (1951) 3G ALR 2 5 7 ; Ansc l l

v Wells ( F u l l Cour t , 2 7 September 1 9 5 2 ) . Thcre i s

horiever a q u c s t i o n as t o t h e c o n t e n t and a p p l l c a t i o n o f

thc requi rements o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e i n t h i s c a s e . Thc

p a r t i c u l a r m a t t e r s r c l i e d	upon	by	t h e a p p l i c a n t a r e a s
fo l lows :

1. ,It thc p romot ions appea l hcar ing the

Committec	d id no t	i n fo rm	Mr. Hurt	of	a l l
o f t h e t h e a p p l i c a n t	m a t e r i a l	b c f o r c	i t .	In	p a r t i c u l a r ,

d i d n o t h a v e a c c e s s t o i n fo rma- somc

ma t t c r conce rn ing h imse l f , o r t o

t i on conce rn ing Mr. Codwin and t h e c a s e

b e i n g p r e s e n t c d by him. Mr. Hur t thus d id

n o t , s o i t i s submitted, have knowledge of

any ma te r i a l bc fo re t he Committee which

may have been adverse to him, and was

n o t , t o use his words, " informed 01 t h e

subs t ance o f t he ca se I had t o mect".

2 . Mr. Hur t and Nr. Godwin were interviewed

s e p a r a t e l y . Mr. Hurt d id not havc an

o p p o r t u n i t y t o t e s t Mr. Codwin's case by

ques t lon ing h im, o r t o d i spu te any th lng

s a i d by Mr. Godwin o r by o t h e r s i n t h e

l a t t e r ' s f a v o u r .

3 . That whereas there were or iginal ly two

a p p e l l a n t s , t h e a p p l i c a n t	was	n o t t o l d	and
d i d n o t	know	u n t i l a f t e r t h c h e a r i n g ,	and

a f t e r t h e p r o m o t i o n o f Mr. Godwin, t h a t

Mr. Fal lon had withdrawn his appeal .

4 . The Committee d id no t conduct a f u l l

I n q u i r y i n t o Mr. H u r t ' s c a s e , as r e q u i r e d

by s.SO(8A) o f t h e Act, b u t r e s t r i c t c d i t s

l n q u l r i e s o f him t o a l imi t ed r ange o f

ma t t e r s . Thcse ma t t e r s i nc luded Mr. l l u r t ' s

vicws on in-housc manasemcnt consulting, and

computlng, and a d i s c u s s i o n o f mat tc rs con-

t a i n e d i n t h e d u t y s t a t e m e n t f o r t h e E n g x n e e r

Class V p o s i t i o n .

5 . Thc Committee d i d n o t a f f o r d Mr. Hurt a f u l l

o p p o r t u n i t y	t o	d e v e l o p	h i s	own	c a s c .	I n
p a r t i c u l a r ,	he	did	not	have	adequate	oppor-

t u n i t y t o speak t o the change i n job

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ,	a n d ,	more	i m p o r t a n t l y ,	t o	t h e
f a c t	t h a t	d c s p j t e	t h e c h a n g e i n	j o b	c l a s s i f l -

c a t i o n t h e d u t i c s o f t h e ncw pos i t i on were

b a s i c a l l y t h c same a s t h o s e o i t h e o l d .

G . A t the conclus ion of the p romot ions appea l

h e a r i n g t h e Committee d i d n o t a d e q u a t c l y s t a t e

t h e f a c t s i t had r e l i e d upon i n r e a c h i n g i t s

r easons fo r s o doing.

The t h r e e members of t h c Committee and t h e a p p l i c a n t

havc g iven a f f idav i t ev idence be fo re me. A number of docu-

ments have membcrs o f t h e Committec a l s o been tendercd. Mr. Hurt was cross-examined,

b u t t h e were not. There i s d i s -

agreement between Mr. Hur t , on t h e one hand, and thc members

o f t he m a t t c r s Committee on the o the r , conce rn ing a number of

r e l a t i n g t o h i s a p p e a r a n c e b e f o r e t h e C o m m i t t e e , and

as t o what	documents	were	then	produccd,	or	sholvn	t o Mr.	H u r t .
I t h i n k t h a t t endency fo r	f o r	t h e m o s t	p a r t	t h i s	IS	due	t o a	n a t u r a l

each t o remember bcs t t hosc t h ings wh lch a t t he

t ime he thought mos t s ign l f lcant .

I t i s not c l i sputcd tha t in due t imc berore thc

hea r ing b l r . Hurt was s e n t a n o t i c e from t h c Committcc

concerning the appeals and t h e courses he should adopt o r

which i t was s u g g e s t e d h e m i g h t a d o p t i n r c l a t i o n t h e r e t o .

This i s t h e document r e f e r r c d t o i n p a r a . 4 ( d ) o€ Mr.

R o s s a l l ' s a f f i d a v i t , s e t o u t b e l o w . I t 1s n o t d i s p u t c d

t h a t Mr. Hurt was interviewed alone by the Committcc and

t h a t th is took over an hour . I t i s no t d i spu ted t ha t each

o f t h e Committce members had beiore him about ten docu-

men t s , ( apa r t Erom duty s ta tements) and that none o f t h e s e

was shown t o t h e applicant. D c t a i l s o f thcm a r e s e t o u t

i n t h c a f F j d a v i t o f the Chairman, Mr. Rossa l l :

"4 . A t t h c h c a r m g o i t hc appea l I had beEore

mc a file c o n t a i n i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g

documcnts :

statement f rom Mr. C . E . Godwln da ted

3 1	August	1 9 8 1	a t t a c h i n g s u p p o r t i n g
s t a t emen t s	and informatj	on	t o g e t h c r

x i t h references. :\nnexed herc to and

marked w i t h t h e l e t t e r 'A ' i s a copy

o f those documents.

A	s c h e d u l e o f	p a r t i c s	t o	t h e a p p c a l
s e t t i n g	o u t	s c n i o r i t v	c t c .	Annexcd

he re to and marked w i th t hc l e t t e r ' B '

i s a copy o f t he	s chedu le .
A copy of	a memorandum d a t e d 1 9 August

1 9 8 1 from	the	Chalrman	o f	t h e	Commlttce
t o thc	Secre ta ry ,	Depar	tment	o	f

Defence. Annexed hercto and marked

w l t h t h e l e t t c r ' C ' i s a copy of thc

mcmorandurn.

A copy of a memorandum da tcd 19 August

1 9 8 1 €ram	t h e	Chairman	of	thc	Committee
t o	t h c	A p p l i c a n t .	Annexcd	h e r e t o	and
marked	w i t h t h e l e t t e r	' D '	i s	a	copy

of thc mcmorandurn.

A copy of a l e t t c r clatcd 26 August 1 9 8 1

from	t h c	A p p l l c a n t	t o	Mr. 1V.J. Smith,
Director	Grievance	and	Appeals	Bureau.

Anncxed h e r e t o and markccl with t h e

l c t t e r ' E ' i s a c o p y o f t h e l c t t c r .

A copy of a l e t t c r datecl 2 5 A u p s t

1 9 8 1 from Mr. W.J. Smlth t o t h c

Appl icant . Annexcd here to and marked

w i t h t h e l c t t e r ' F ' i s a copy O C t h e

l c t t e r .

A	s ta tcment p rovided	by	the App l i can t
da ted	2	Septembcr	1 9 5 1 a t t a c h i n g a
c a r e e r	summary,	a	d iagram depic t ing

c a r e c r h i s t o r y , o t h e r d o c u m c n t a t i o n

and a r e f e r e n c e d a t c d 1 Mav 1 9 5 1 Erom

Rear-Admlral D . R . Lynam. Annexcd

he rc to and marked w i th t he l e t t e r ' G '

. - 7 -

1s a copy of the said p a p c r s .

A mcmorandum da ted 9 September 1 9 8 1 from

I . J . Unwin f o r A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y , C i v l l

P c r s o n n e l , t o t h e Chairman of t h e

Committee e n c l o s i n g a Depar tmen ta l s t a t e -

ment and a number of a t tachmcnts . Annexed

he rc to and marked w l th t he l c t t c r ' H ' i s

a copy O K the documentat ion.

A re ference f rom Capta in (R.A.N.) O . R .

Coopcr da t ed 2 7 August 1983 on bchalf of

t h e Applicant.	Annexed hereto	and	marked
with	t h c	l c t t c r	'J' i s a copy o f t h e

r e f e r e n c e .

A r e fc rence f rom Ac tmg Commodore (R.A.N.)

N . R . B . ,	Be r lyn ,	da t ed	I	Septembcr	1 9 8 1 on
hchal f	o f	the	Appl icant .	Annexed	h e r c t o

and marked w i t h t h e l e t t e r ' K ' 1 s a copy

o f t h e r e f e r e n c e . "

documents r e r e r r e d t o i n p a r a g r a p h s (a ) , ( b ) ,

and ( j ) o f c lause 4 were not shown t o t h e p r a c t i c e

a p p l i c a n t , b e c a u s e , Mr. Rossal l s a y s , it was n o t t h e

of the Committee t o do s o " a t t h a t t i m e " . Thc othcr docu-

mcnts, as Mr. Rossa l l s ays , had e i the r bcen madc a v a i l a b l e

by Mr. H u r t o r wcrc rncmoranda and l e t t e r s t o o r f rom him.

I t i s n o t	c o n t c n d c r l	t h a t	t h e	r e f e r e e s '	r e p o r t s	s h o u l d	h a v c
becn	made	a v a i l a b l e t o t h e	a p p l i c a n t	( S C C	R	v	Teachers
Tribunal; ex	par	te	Colvin	(1974)	\'R	9 0 5 ,	a t p p . 9 0 9 - 9 1 0 ;

Science	Research	Council	v	Nass6	( 1 9 8 0 )	AC	1 0 2 8 ,	a t	p p . 1 0 6 5 - 6 ,
1 0 7 0 - 1 ,	1 0 7 4 ,	1 0 8 0 - 2 ,	1088-9) .	That	thcy	wcre	expccted	to	bc

c o n l l d e n t l a l was l n d l c a t c d i n t h e n o t l c c r c f c r r e d t o I n

para . (d) of c l a u s e 4 .

The documcnt r e l e r r e d t o i n p a r a . (a) i s a l e t t e r

concerning the appeal f rom Mr. Godwin i n lvhich he r epor t s d e a l s h l t h

h i s own q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and expe r l cnce , and a t t aches

of r e f e r e c s . The most t h a t he can be regarded AS say ing

a g a i n s t Mr. Hurt i s t h a t hc (Mr. Codwin) has " supe r io r

e f f i c i e n c y " . One o f h i s r e f e r e e s , t h c D i r e c t o r - G e n c r a l ,

Naval Design says O F hlm:

"I cons l c l e r t ha t J e f f r ey i s most s u i t c d

t o t h e p o s i t i o n and on p a s t r e c o r d s would

p e r f o r m t h e p o s i t l o n functions i n a more

a b l c manner than 1 s p r e s c n t l y t h e c a s e . "

The document r c f e r r e d t o i n p a r a . ( b ) i s f o r m a l o n l y ; t h a t

r e f e r r e d t o i n p a r a . ( c ) 1 s a requcst from the Committee

to the t o Mr. Department O F Defence and contalns nothlng advcrse

Hurt . The l e t t c r and e n c l o s u r c s r e f c r r e d t o I n p a r a .

(h) w c r e I n r e p 1 ) - t o t h e l e t t c r r e f c r r e d t o i n p a r a . ( c )

and were h l g h l y f a v o u r a b l e t o Mr. H u r t . l r l a te r la l conta incd

thc re in concc rn lng Mr. Codwin was a l so f avourab le t o h im.

The f i n a l summary j n this assessmcnt from the Dcpartrnent of

Defencc was :

"Mr. Hurt was s e l c c t e d f o r p r o v l s i o n a l

promotion t o P o s i t i o n 3015 on t h e b a s l s

o f h i s dcp th o f expe r i cnce and ou t s t and-

l n g pc r ro rmance i n t he pos i t i on . The

appel lan ts could no t match Mr. H u r t ' s

relevant knowledge o r exper icnce ."

Paragraphs	(i) and	(1)	r e l a t e d	t o	t h e	r e p o r t s	o f	Mr.	I l u r t ' s
r e f e rees ,	wh	ich	werc	f	avourab	le	t o	h l s	promotion.

The d u t y s t a t e m e n t f o r t h e new p o s i t i o n was b c f o r c

t h e members	o f	t he	Cornmittec,	as was	t h e onc	f o r	t h e	o l d
pos i t l on .	Thcse	documcn t s	( a t	l ea s t	t hose	r e l a t ing	t o	t he

new p o s l t l o n ) w e r e n o t f i l l e d i n on t h e r e v e r s e s l d e . The

du ty s t a t emcn t s fo r t he new and o l d p o s l t i o n s w e r e r a i s c d

f o r t h e a p p c l l a n t ' s i n s p e c t i o n a t t h e o u t s c t of t h e I n q u i r y ,

but he p robably d id no t thcn obscrvc the rcverse s ide o f

t he du ty s t a t emcn t f o r t h e new p o s i t i o n . T h i s s i d c h a s on

the	top	thc	typed	heading	"Pos i t ion	Evalua t ion"	and	i s	no t
p a r t	o f	t h e	s t a t e m e n t	o	f	d u t i c s .	The	p a r t i c u l a r	m a t t e r
which	t h e	a p p l i c a n t	s a y s	t h e	Committee	could	have	seen	on

the r eve r se observa t ion s idc (had t h i s s ide du t ies bcen comple t ed ) was t h e

"Bas ica l ly thc approved f o r t h i s new

posi t ion remain unchanged and in br ief they are . . . l ' . There

could no t be any doubt Committee in my (Messrs. o p i n i o n t h a t a t l e a s t two

members o f t h c Rossa l l and Caporn) were

aware t h a t t h e form made p r o v i s l o n f o r i t s r c v e r s e s i d c t o

be comple t ed ( a s app ropr i a t e ) , and t he na tu re OC t h e

m a t e r i a l u s u a l l y f o u n d t h e r c . Xor cou ld t he rc be any doubt

t h a t a l l t h r e e mcmbcrs o l t h e Commlttec were wcll aware

t h a t t h e new pos i t i on had been c r ca t ed from one Nhich was

v e r y s l m l l a r , a n d t h a t Mr. Hurt had been i n t h e o l d

p o s i t i o n s i n c e 1 9 7 3 . They were a l so awarc tha t he had sought

t h c r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .

A t t h c openlng o f t h e h c a r i n g , t h e Chairman o f

t h c Committec t o l d Mr. Hurt o f t he In t ended p rocedure ,

and t h i s was observed. The app l i can t d id no t cxp res s any

o b j e c t i o n t o i t . The Chairman t o l d him a t a n e a r l y s t a g e

t h a t t h e y had s tud lcd t he pape r s , t h a t t h c y w e r e s a t i s I i c d

of a number o f m a t t e r s , and t h a t t h e y w i s h e d t o a s k him

about a iew a s p e c t s o n l y . L a t e r , t h e Chairman s a i d t o him

t h a t b o t h h e and ?Jr. Godwin were good o f f i c c r s . I t may

b c t h a t Mr. Hurt was expec t ing t ha t t he p roceed ings would

d e v e l o p i n some o t h c r way, bu t he was s p e c i f i c a l l y a s k c d

towards or a t the end 01 thc intervlcw whcther he wished

t o s a y a n y t h i n g f u r t h e r , a n d i t 1s no t doub ted t ha t he

was given l u l l o p p o r t u n i t y t o d o s o . He made no complaint

or reques t s a y s t h a t concern ing the in te rv ie ! \ - a t t h a t tlme, b u t he

h c d i d n o t know about some o f the documents

wh ich t he Commi t t ee had un t i l t he a f f idav i t s o f Messrs.

Rossal l and Caporn wcre f i l e d . I assume t h a t t h c s c a r e

mainly, i f n o t s o l e l y t h e l c t t e r f r o m Mr. Godwln and sup-

p o r t i n g r c f c r c c s ' r c p o r t s . He d id no t a sk a l lozccd t ha t he and

Mr. Godwin appca r t oge the r , o r tha t hc bc to

q u c s t i o n t h e l a t t e r ( c f . U n i v e r s i t y o f Ceylon v Fernando

(1960) 1 A l l ER 631) .	Hc was t o l d on the	a r t e rnoon	oC
t h e same	day	t h a t h e h a d l o s t t h e	a p p e a l .

I t 1s submi t t ed t ha t he shou ld haw had an

o p p o r t u n i t y t o h c a r t h c e v i d e n c e 01 h i s c o m p e t i t o r f o r

t h e position, Mr. Godwin, and t o a s k him q u e s t i o n s . T h i s

amounts t o a submission tha t each shou ld havc had t ha t

oppor tunl ty , and the submiss ion tha t such a requlrernent

e x i s t s i s p u t i n r e l l a n c c upon l \ ha t was s a i d i n F i n c h v

Golds te in ( supra a t p p . 2 9 9 , 3 0 0 , 3 0 3 ) . I t 1s made c l c a r a t

11.300 o f t h c r e p o r t o f t h a t c a s e t h a t t h e r e i s no such

general requirement . A t p . 3 0 5 t h e l e a r n e d ~ u d g e s a i d

"This 1 s probably a v e r y s p e c i a l casc". l'hc legal p o s i t i o n

._ i n t h i s r e g a r d has now b e e n c l a r l f i e d b y t h e d e c i s i o n of

. t h e F u l l C o u r t i n A n s e l l v Wells ( s u p r a ) .

I t 1s my u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e r c are two b a s i c

r e q u i r e m e n t s o f n a t u r a l ~ u s t l c e , w h ~ c h , e x p r c s s e d i n t h e

f a m i l i a r l a t l n , a r e nemo judex i n causa , and aud i a l t e r am

partem. There 1s no q u e s t i o n i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e concerning

the former . Var ious requi rements have been he ld t 0 f low

Crom t h e l a t t e r , d e p c n d l n g upon the c i r cums tanccs of each

c a s c . I t h a s more than once been said that the most

s a t i s f a c t o r y g e n e r a l l s a t i o n i s t h a t t h e r e b e p r o c c d u r a l

f a i r n e s s i n e a c h c a s e . C e r t a m l y , w h a t n a t u r a l j u s t i c e

r e q u i r e s i n one case may b e q u i t e d i f f e r c n t from what i t

r e q u i r c s i n a n o t h e r . I n R u s s e l l v Dukc of IiorEolk ( 1 9 4 9 )

1 A 1 1 ER 1 0 9 , a t p . 1 1 S , 'l'uckcr L.J. s a i d :

"The r equ i r emen t s o f na tu ra l j u s t i ce

must depend on the c i r cums tances oE t h e

c a s e , t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i n q u i r y , t h e

ru l c s unde r wh ich t he t r i buna l i s a c t i n g ,

t h e s u b ~ c c t - m a t t e r	t h a t	i s	b c l n g d e a l t
with,	and	s o	Corth."

K i t t o J. s t a t e d t h e s i t u a t i o n i n a n o f t e n c i t c d p a s s a g e

( l lobi l 011 Australia Pty. 1 . td . v Federal Commissioner oE

Taxat ion ( 1 9 6 3 ) 113 CLR 4 7 5 , a t 1 . 5 0 4 ) :

"1Vhat t h e law r c q u l r e s i n t h e d i s c h a r g e O F

a q u a s i - j u d i c i a l f u n c t l o n i s j u d i c l a l € a i r -

n e s s . T h i s i s not a l a b e l f o r any f l x e d

body oE r u l e s . What i s f a l r III a - g ivcn

s i tua t ion depcnds upon t h e C ~ ~ C U I I I S ~ ~ ~ C C S ."

(and see Commiss~on; ex The Quccn v Commonwealth C o n c i l i a t l o n a n d A r b i t r a t i o n

p a r t e Angljss Group ( 1 9 6 9 ) 1 2 2 CLR a t p p . 5 4 6 ,

552 whcre these passages were c i t c d w i t h a p p r o v a l ) .

In some s l t u a t i o n s r l g h t s a r e recognised and

. - 1 2 -

cnforced which ass imi la te an admjnis t ra t ive p roceeding wi th

an o rd ina ry cu r i a l p roceed ing . Then , a r i g h t t o h e a r a n

opposing o r contending par ty , and to c ross -examine him 1s

regarded as within thc mandatcs oE n a t u r a l l u s t i c e . I n

o t h e r c a s c s t h i s 1s n o t s o . M a t t e r s r e l e v a n t i n d e t e r m l n -

a t l n g what i s requi red a re numerous . Thev i n c l u d e t h e

n a t u r e , c o n s t i t u t i o n and powers o f t h e t r i b u n a l whose

d e c i s i o n i s i n q u c s t i o n , t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l Eramcwork i n

which i t ope ra t c s , t he cx t en t t o wh ich t he gove rn ing

l e g i s l a t i o n a s s i m i l a t e s i t s p rocedures t o t hose o f a

C o u r t , e s t a b l i s h e d c u s t o m a n d p r a c t i c e i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r

t y p e o f c a s e , t h e r o l e o f t h c t r i b u n a l I n t h c p a r t i c u l a r

ca se , t hc t h e d e c i s i o n u n d e r w id th o f t h c d i s c r e t i o n i t has , t hc impac t o f

c h a l l e n g c on thc complainant and other

pc r sons , and t h c e x t e n t t o which the proceedings under

cha l lenge should , becausc o f t h c f o r e g o i n g , o r o t h e r w l s c ,

bc r e g a r d e d a s a d v c r s a r l a l .

I t i s e s t a b l l s h e d t h a t t h e r e q u i r c m e n t s o f

n a t u r a l l u s t i c e a r e n o t s I I e c t c d b y t h c f a c t t h a t r e l l e T

undc r t h i s head 1s now given uncler t h e J u d i c i a l Rcview

Ac t . Hav ing In mind , In pa r t i cu la r , t he l lmi t a t lons

a s s o c j a t e d w i t h t h c g r a n t oC p r e r o g a t i v e writs, and, Tor

t h a t m a t t e r , d e c l a r a t i o n s , r e l i c 1 map now be more r e a d i l y

a v a i l a b l e u n d e r t h c J u d i c i a l Kcview Act.

Whcn c o n s i d e r i n g n a t u r a l j u s t i c e I n r e l a t i o n t o

t h e e x c r c ~ s c O E t h e f u n c t i o n s o f the Promotions Appeal

Committee i t i s r e l e v a n t t o know t h a t i t 1s n o t bound by

.

t h e r u l c s o f e v i d e n c e , t h a t i t may i n f o r m l t s c l r a s i t lil11,

and	t h a t	i t i s " to	make	i t s	i n q u i r i e s	w i t h o u t	r e g a r d	t o
l cga l	fo rms	o	r	so l emni ty"	( r eg .	109F,madc	pursuant	to

s . 9 7 ( l ) ( h ) o f t h e Act). I t has been he ld t ha t a t r i b u n a l

i n t h a t p o s i t i o n i s n o t i n g e n e r a l o b l i g e d t o g r a n t a p a r t y

t h e r l g h t t o t e s t b y c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n i n f o r m a t l o n d e r i v e d

Jrom an o u t s i d e s o u r c e ( s e c T . A . Mi l le r J . td . v Minls te r o f

Housing	and	Local	Government	(1965)	1 WLR	9 9 2 ,	a t	p . 9 9 5 ,
Gavanagh v Chief	Constable	o f	Dcvon	and	Cornwall	( 1 9 7 4 )	QB	6 2 4 ,

a t p p . 6 3 3 - 4 ) . I t s genc ra l du ty o f p r o c e d u r a l f a i r n c s s

woulcl however normally require that it shou ld no t ac t on

m a t e r i a l s i g n i f i c a n t l y a d v e r s c o r p r e j u d i c i a l t o a p a r t y ,

w i t h o u t i n Eorming him as t o what i t i s , and giving him an

o p p o r t u n i t y t o d e a l	with	i t ,	by	r e i u t a t l o n o r o t h c r w i s c
(General	Medical	Council	v Spackman	(1943) AC 6 2 7 , a t

p p . 6 4 0 - 3 ; see E lec t ion Impor t ing Co. Propr ie ta ry 1 . imi tcd

v Courtice (1949) SO CLR 6 5 7 , a t p . 6 6 3 ; R v Met ropol i tan

Falr Rents Hamblin v Uuffv (No. 2) Board; Fx par te Cancs t ra (1961) VR 5 9 , a t p p . 9 1 - 2 ;

s u p r a , a t p . 3 0 5 , and a u t h o r i t i e s

t h e r e c i t e d ) . p rove advisable T h i s i s a n i m p o r t a n t m a t t e r . I t may w e l l

€ o r t h e whole o f t h e m a t c r l a l p r e s e n t e d by

o r i n obtained c o n n e c t i o n w i t h e a c h c o n t e s t a n t , a s w e l l a s t h a t

from elsewhere ( b u t l e a v i n g a s i d e r e f e r c e s ' r e p o r t s )

t o be made a v a i l a b l e a t t h e h c a r i n g 01 t hc appea l t o t h e

o t h e r	o r o t h e r s .	I n	t h i s	way	each c m bc	g	iven	g rca t e r
c o n f i d e n c e	i n	t h e	f a i r n e s s	o f	t hc	p rocced lngs ,	as we l l	a s

being provided w ~ t h an oppor tun l ty t o dca l l r l t h any mat te r

hc regards as d e t r i m c n t a l t o h i s c a r e c r .

.

- 1 4 -

If a t r i b u n a l i s h e a r i n g c o n t e s t c d c l a i m s i n

what may b e c a l l e d a n a d v e r s a r i a l s i t u a t i o n , s o t h a t i t s

p roceed ings	a r e	ana	lagous	t o	cou r t	p roceed ings ,	i t	will
normally	be	e x p e c t e d	t o	e n s u r e	c o n f r o n t a t i o n	a n d	t o	p e r -

m i t c ros s -cxamina t lon . The p r e s c n t i s no t howevcr an

adversarv p roceeding in th i s sense . There hcre two people

i n	c o m p c t l t i o n f o r	t h e	same	p o s i t i o n ,	and	“super	ior
c f f i c i e n c y ”	was	i n q u c s t i o n b u t	i t	could	not	have	been

thought by	anyonc	t h a t t h l s	was	a	m a t t e r t o b e explorcd
i n d c t a l l . common,	O b v i o u s l y ,	t h e	Committee was	cxpcc ted ,	as 1s

t o do i t s b e s t t o r e a c h a judgment on m a t e r i a l s

o f t h e l i m i t e d n a t u r e u s e d i n such cases , supplementcd b)

s u c h i n q u i r i e s a s I t thought [it t o makc. -4 d e c l s i c n as

t o t h e f a c t o r s t o b e c o n s i d e r e d i s one f o r the Committcc,

which i s t o b c t r e a t e d in t h l s r e g a r d a5 an expcrt body.

l’he mcthod o f conduct ing in te rv iews r o r

pos i t i ons and f o r p r o m o t i o n i n t h e p u b l i c as w e l l as t h e

p r i v a t e	s e c t o r	i s well kncun	and	accepted.	It	i s n o t i n
my vlcw p u b l i c s c r v i c c t h c p r o c e d u r e s h o u l d b c r a c l l c a l l y d l l c c r c n t .	l i k e l y	t h a t	t h e	l e g l s l a t u r e	i n t e n d e d t h a t	i n	t h e

There can be many c o n t e n d e r s f o r t h e one pos l t i on and i t

i s n o t i n t h e l e a s t l i k c l y t h a t i t was i n t e n d e d t h a t t h e r e

be a j o l l l t , a d v e r s a r l a l , h c a r ~ n g o f a l l c a s c s . In Ilamblin

v Duffv (No. 2) ( s u p r a ) , a p r o m o t i o n case undcr thc Broad-

cas t in :	and	T e l c v i s i o n	Act	1 9 4 2 ,	there	were	four	ccn-
t e n d e r s .	To	have	turned	that	proceeding	into	one	whcre

each cou ld a t t ack t he p re sen ta t ion o f t h e o t h e r wculcl, I

b e l i e v e , h a v e t e n d c d t o o p e r a t e a g a i n s t t h e i n t c r e s t s o i

t h e A u s t r a l i a n B r o a d c a s t i n g Commission, and s a t i s f a c t o r y

employee r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n i t . C e r t a i n l y , many days o f

hear ing might have eventuated.

This i s n o t t o s a y t h a t a casc may never occur

whcn f a i r n e s s and j u s t i c e d i c t a t c m u t u a l c o n f r o n t a t i o n ,

and a s s o c i a t e d r i g h t s t o c r o s s - e x a m m a t i o n . The appea l

process was in t ended t o p rov ide bo th a f a i r h e a r i n g , and

the appcarance o i one, and procedures must bc followed

which s ecu re t hese r e su l t s .

In t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , so f a r a s a p p e a r s , n e i t h e r

c o n t e s t a n t showed a n y d e s i r e t o a t t a c k o r c r i t i c i s e t h c

case o f t h e o t h e r . Each p r e s c n t e d h i s own c a s e , basccl on

h i s	own	c r e d e n t i a l s .	Both	were	rcgarded	favourably,	s o
f a r	a s	appo in tmen t	t o	t he	ncw	p o s i t i o n was	concerned.

The p r e s e n t app11 c a n t , Mr. Hur t , was t o l d t h a t he had found

favour with the Department, and hc knew t h a t Mr. Godwln was

a s t rong s a i d b y con tende r . So f a r as appcars , t h e r c was no th ing

o r i n s u p p o r t o f Mr. Godwin Ivhich i n F a i r n e s s

Mr. Hurt should have had an opportunity o f c o n t r a d i c t i n g o r

q u a l i f y i n g . The l a t t e r was n o t c r j t i c i s e d , u n l e s s a c la im

by a c o n t e s t a n t t h a t hc himsclf i s be t t e r can be r ega rded

a s a c r i t i c i s m ; h i s q u a l i C l c a t l o n s and cxperience were not

den ig ra t ed . Mr. Hurt does not now c h a l l e n g e a n y t h i n g i n

thc cu r r i cu lum v i t ae o r suppor t ing s t a t emen t s and r c fe renccs

of Mr. Godwin. Indecd, the appl icant does not point to any

conc re t e examples o f what he would have done, or said, or

what was l i k e l y t o have happencd, i f t h e p r o c e d u r c f o r

which he contends had been followcd.

Mr. Hur t cha l l enges t he dec i s lon r eachcd on t h e

grounds tha t he should have been to ld more du r ing t hc

in te rv ie rc o f what was i n t h e minds of members OF t h e

Committee, and t h a t t h e y , a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y Nr. Rruce (as

Defence Dcpartment representat ive) should have askcd more

ques t ions o f h im. Thcre a re in gcnera l n o such l cga l

requxrements ; these a re mat tc rs for the Commit tee In .

t h i s c a s c , h a v i n g c o n s i d e r e d t h e p a p e r s , and d i s c u s s e d t h e

m a t t e r , t h e y w i s h c d f o r f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n on c e r t a i n

ma t t e r s on ly . The Committee hac1 b c f o r e i t a documcnt "the

CREAM documcnt", described by b l r . Hurt as showing \cork of

which he t h e document came be€ore \vas very proud. There i s somc d i spu te abou t how

the Committee, but i t was r c f c r r e d

t o by Mr. Hurt and docs no t appcar In i t se l1 to havc bcen

a d v e r s e t o Mr. Hur t . Mr. Hurt spoke t o m a t t e r s upon which

t h e Committee wanted fu r the r i n Io rn la t ion and was l a t e r asked

whether he had anythmg to add. Mr. R o s s a l l p u t s it a l i t t l e

h i g h e r , - t h a t h e was asked whcther he had had a s u r f l c i c n t

o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t	h i s	c a s c ,	-	t o which	he	r e p l i c d	i n
t h e a f f i r m a t i v e .

The Chairman made a note of thc Commit tee 's con-

c l u s i o n s , b u t n e i t h e r	hc	nor	i t	was	I n	my	o p l n j o n r e q u i r e d t o
s t a t e r e a s o n s i n	any	formal	way	(sce	Schmldt	v	S e c r e t a r y o r
S t a t e	f o r	Home	Office	(1969)	2	Ch.	1 4 9 ; R v Gaming B o a r d

f o r G r e a t B r i t a i n ; ex p a r t e Benaim ( 1 9 7 0 ) 2 QB 4 1 7 , a t

p.451) . I t would indeed be s t r a n g e I f t h ~ s werc ncccssary

hav ing i n mind thc expres s exonc ra t ion by Schcdulc 2 of

t h e J u d x c i a l Revicw Act from t h e n e c e s s l t y f o r It t o

g lvc reasons under 5.15 of t h a t Act (see s.13(11)).

I n my view, t h e r c was no d e n i a l o f n a t u r a l

j u s t i c e . I t i s c e r t a i n l y n o t a c a s e i n whlcll r e l i c f shoulcl

be granted c o n s i d e r on tha t g round. The Committee d i d n o t € a i l t o

r e l e v a n t m a t c r i a l . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n

should be dismissed. If t h c p a r t i e s w i s h , I rail1 hear

them on t h e q u e s t i o n 01 c o s t s .