Ivers v McCubbin

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ivers v McCubbin & Ors [2005] QCA 200

PARTIES:

DAVID JOHN IVERS
(plaintiff/applicant)
v
KEITH McCUBBIN
(first defendant/first respondent)
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(second defendant/second respondent)
JOHN BRITON
(third defendant/third respondent)
GLEN STEWART
(fourth defendant)
CARA McNICOL
(fifth defendant)
ELINOR RATCLIFFE
(sixth defendant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 9438 of 2004
SC No 3238 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave/Judicial Review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 June 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 March 2005

JUDGES:

McPherson and Jerrard JJA and White J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.    The applications for leave to appeal are allowed
2.    The orders made 30 September 2004 in SC No 3238 of       2003 are set aside
3.    The applicant is given leave to amend his application       for a statutory order of review
4.    The respondents pay any costs incurred by the       applicant, to be agreed or taxed on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – COMMONWEALTH, QUEENSLAND AND AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY – GROUNDS FOR REVIEW OF DECISION – OTHER GROUNDS – applicant was a Fire Ant Control Centre (‘FACC’) team leader – investigation of an incident involving the applicant’s team resulted in the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him – a ‘show cause’ letter issued to applicant after an investigation report prepared – applicant sought statutory order of review of the decision to initiate investigation – trial judge dismissed application – whether investigation initiated via correct procedure – whether apprehended bias by FACC Director or author of investigation report – whether arguable grounds for a statutory order of review

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20, s 21, s 48, s 49
Public Service Act 1996 (Qld), s 34, s 88

Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564, cited
Ambrey v Oswin [2005] QCA 112; Appeal No 7368 of 2004, 15 April 2005, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf with G J Ivers assisting
M O Plunkett for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf with G J Ivers assisting
C W Lohe, Crown Solicitor for the respondents

1. McPHERSON JA:  I agree with the reasons of Jerrard JA and the comments of White J, as well with the orders for disposing of this application and appeal proposed by his Honour.

1. I cannot part with this matter without remarking that a well-intentioned mechanism for ensuring the proper administration of units of the public service has in this case, and possibly in some others we have seen in this Court, engendered ill‑feeling and consequences going well beyond the relative triviality of the original incident that gave rise to it. From this, no one can have benefited. Not every work place dispute is best resolved by using the semi-judicial processes envisaged in the Departmental procedure.

1. JERRARD JA: These proceedings were applications for leave to appeal orders made…