Hutchinson v RTA & Anor - [2002] NSWCA 148

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: Hutchinson v RTA & Anor [2002] NSWCA 148

FILE NUMBER(S):
40601 of 2001

HEARING DATE(S): 16/04/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 24/06/2002

PARTIES:
Rowan Hutchinson
v
Roads & Traffic Authority
&
Government and Related Employees Tribunal

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA Handley JA Stein JA

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): GREAT 310

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: P A Lynch

COUNSEL:
A: Mr Game SC & Mr Howell
R: Mr Fernon

SOLICITORS:
A: Lawrence N Dunn
R1: Henry Davis York
R2: I V Knight Crown Solicitor

CATCHWORDS:
Application for prerogative relief - employment dismissal - alleged breach of Code of Conduct - harassment - whether the Second Tribunal used the First Tribunal's reasons as a template - summons dismissed with costs.

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Summons dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40601 of 2001
GREAT 310 of 1998
MEAGHER JA
HANDLEY JA
STEIN JA
Monday, June 24 2002

ROWAN HUTCHINSON v ROADS & TRAFFIC AUTHORITY & 1 Or

FACTS

The appellant, Mr Hutchinson, was summarily dismissed from his employment with the RTA, the respondent, for an alleged breach of the RTA’s Code of Conduct. Mr Hutchinson appealed to the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal (the First Tribunal), which dismissed his appeal. The appellant then successfully sought relief in this Court, and the First Tribunal’s decision was quashed on the ground of the apprehended bias of its Chairman. The Court directed a rehearing. The rehearing (the Second Tribunal), conducted by a differently constituted tribunal, also dismissed Mr Hutchinson’s appeal.

On appeal, the appellant contended that the decision of the Second Tribunal was invalid because it did not address the case before it, but adopted, wherever it could, the ipsissima verba, of the First Tribunal.

HELD Per Meagher JA (Handley JA and Stein JA agreeing):

There is no precise correspondence of language at the points which really matter. Since nobody had decided that the First Tribunal’s decision on the merits was incorrect, the temptation, in these circumstances, to adopt the ipsissima verba of the First Tribunal was, obviously, irresistible. It was not demonstrated to the Court that the Tribunal took into account some factor which they should not have, or failed to take into account some factor they should have.

ORDERS

Summons dismissed with costs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40601 of 2001
GREAT 310 of 1998
MEAGHER JA
HANDLEY JA
STEIN JA
Monday, June 24 2002

ROWAN HUTCHINSON v ROADS & TRAFFIC AUTHORITY & 1 Or

Judgment

MEAGHER JA: This is an application for prerogative relief by Mr Hutchinson against the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal, which dismissed an appeal by Mr Hutchinson against his dismissal from work by the respondent Roads and Traffic Authority (“RTA”).
Mr Hutchinson was employed by the RTA as an engineer from 1986 until 28 April 1998. On 28 April 1998 he was summarily dismissed from his employment by the RTA.…

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 Hutchinson v RTA & 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: [2002] NSWCA 148
Decision Date: 24 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for prerogative relief brought by Hutchinson against the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) and a second tribunal. Hutchinson sought to challenge the dismissal of his employment, which he alleged was based on breaches of a Code of Conduct involving harassment. The application was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Second Tribunal had erred in its decision by impermissibly using the reasons of the First Tribunal as a template for its own determination. This raised questions about the independence and proper application of judicial reasoning by the tribunal.

The Court found that the Second Tribunal had indeed adopted the reasoning of the First Tribunal without sufficient independent consideration. This approach was deemed to be a failure to properly exercise its jurisdiction, as it did not engage with the specific evidence and arguments presented to it. Consequently, the summons was dismissed.

The summons was dismissed with costs awarded in favour of the respondents.

Orders

Orders of the court

Summons dismissed with costs.

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.