J & S Holdings Pty Ltd v NRMA Insurance Ltd

[1982] FCA 78

IN THE FEDERAL COURT 017 AUSTRALIA )

1

AUSTPALTAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	) No ACT G50 of 1981
1
DISTRICT REGISTRY	)
1
GCNE?AL DIVISTON	)

BETWEEN: ARTHUR LEE RURXS

Applicant

AND:  THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL
UNIVm;SITY

Respondent

CORRIGEKDA

CLLICOTT J:

Anendment to be made as follows to his Honour’s

rezsons for ~udgment of 27 April 1962

The word “agreevent“ In line nineteen (19) oLC page

nineteen (19) should read “arqurrent”

Adminis t ra t ive lax: - Judic ia l rev iew - Furn i sh ing o f

r e a s o n s f o r d e c i s i o n - T e n ~ i n a t i o n of p r o f e s s o r ' s

appointment by Council of !.mstralian XationaL Universi.ty

on ground of permanent incapacity - Council p u r p o r t i n g to

ac t unde r power con ta ined i n cond i t io r s of appointment -.

&pplication f o r reasons under Administrative Decisions

( J u d i c i a l Review) Act - Whether dec i s ion t o which A c t

a p p l i e s - WheLher of a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c h r a c t e r - \?€lether

made under cont rac t of appoin tnent o r cncler it and the Univers-

ity Act	- Test for	deternining	whether	s o	Fade.
Administrative	Decisions	(Judicial	%view)	A c t	1977

ss.3, 13,Schedule 2

-	Austra1.ian National	U n i v e r s i t y t 1946 s s -	4, 6 , 10,	2 3 , 2 7 ,
28.

CORAV :	E l l i c o t t	J.
Canberra

27 A p r i l 1982

ARTHUR LEE BURNS

O R D E R

JUDGE ?WXIK ORGEE.:	E l l i c o t t J.
TXERE FADE :	Canberra
DATE :	27 April 1982

TIIE COUXT : -

(1) Declares tha t the applicznt vas entitl-ed

t o make	t he r eques t	naZc	by	h i m in h i s
l e t t e r d a t e d	23 Rovember	1981	to	the Universiey;

( 2 ) Orders that the respondent pay the a p F l i c a n t ' s

c o s t s or this app l i ca t ion .

ARTHUR LEE BUFGS

Applicant - -

_-

T€E AUSTRALIAT bXTIOI?AL UXIVERSITY

Respondent

COP&*L:  ELLICOTT J.

REASONS FOR JUXPlEXT

Arthur Lee Burns( "the applicant?)rras appointed

to the second Chair in the Department of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e ,

~ _-

Research School of Socia l Sc iences a t The Aus t ra l ian Nat iona l

University(l1the University") on 9 December 1966. €le was f i r s t

employed by the Univers i ty as a Research Fellox i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l

Relat ions on 14 Harch 1955.

On 1 3 Wovember 1981 the Council of the Univers i ty

r e so lved t o t e rn ina te h i s appoln t ren t wi th e f rcc t from c l o s e

o f business on t h a t dcy on the ground th2-t he had become

pcrnanent ly incapaci ta ted	from performine thc	d u t j c s of	h i s
o f f i c e .

Afte r t ha t da t e , t he app l i can t r eques t ed the

Universl-ty, in accordance with S . 13 o f t he Administrative

Decis lons ( .Judicial Review) Act 1977 ( " the Ac t " ) , t o

f u r n i s h him	with	E	s-ca-tement i n wr i t i ng r ega rd ing	the
Cour?c i l ' s dec is ion , se t t ing ou t	i t s	f ind ings	on	m a t e r i a l
quest ions	o f	f a c t , r e f e r r i n g	t o the evidence	o r o t h e r
ma te r i a l	on	which those f indings	were based and giving	the
dec is ion .	reasons	f o r the	-	--

This appl icat ion has been brought by the a p p l i c a n t

pursuant t o s . l3 (4A)(b) o f t h e Act f o r an o r d e r d e c l a r i n g

t h a t h e was e n t i t l e d t o make the request .

The Universi ty was o f t he op in ion t ha t the

app l i can t was n o t e n t i t l e d t o make th i s reques l : and gave

him not ice in wr i t ing accord tngly .

The r e l e v z n t f a c t s a r e n o t i n d i s p u t e . Gn

9 December 1966 the then Regis t ra r o f t h e I n s t i t u t e o f

Advanced Studics wi th in the Univers i ty , o f which I n s t i t u t e

the Research School	or^ Social Sciences	forms	p a r t ,	wrote	to
t h e a p p l i c a n t o f f e r i n g	him	appointment	t o 2	second L-air	i n

. _-

the Department of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e e f f e c t i v e f rom 9 December

1966. The l e t t e r a t t a c h e d two copies o f t he cond i t ions o f

appointment and requested that i f he wished to accept the

appointment, he sign or?e and r e t u r n it- The condi t ions of

appolctment re€erred	t o were	conta ined in	a document dated
26	February 1963 and headed I'Conditions	o f Appointment	or^ a

Professor, other than a Professor in charge or^ a

Departmcnt". The condl t ions In the i r t e rms '.rere no t d i r e c t e d

t o t h e a p ~ l i c a n t , i n P a r t i c u l a r ,bu t appear to hzvc been

the penera1 condi t io~s used by the Ucivers i ty €or the

appointment o f a p r o f c s s o r i n t h e I n s t i t u t e of Advanced

Studies a t t h e University. They d e a l t w i t h a number of

na t t e r s i nc lu6 inp s a l a ry , t enu re , du t i e s and leave. Those

r e l a t i n g t o t e n u r e end d u t i e s were as follows:-

"2.	Tenure
(a) The appointment will b2 s u b j e c t to

t he r ece ip t o f a s a t i s f a c t o r y m e d i c a l

report following an examination	carr ie-e
out by a physician nominated	by the
Uaiversi ty .

(b) A Professor sha l l , exceyt where otherwise

providcd in the condi t ions of his appointpent

hold	o f f i c e u n t i l t h e t h i r t y - f i r s t d a y	of
December	in the year in which he	a t ta ins

t h e age of 65 years , provided that -

(i) a P r o f e s s o r n a y r e t i r e a t any time

a f t e r r each ing the aE.e of 60 y e a r s

with superannuat ion benefi ts i n

accordance with the Un ive r s i ty ' s

superannuation scheme;

(ii) the Council mey te rmina te the

appointment o f , ancl remove from

o f f i c e , any Professor who has

become	permanent ly incapaci ta ted
from perforning the duties of	his

o f f i c e , o r who i s g u i l t y of misconduct

or has become i n e f f i c i e n t ; b u t -in the

case of misconduct o r i n e f f i c i e n c y onL:

a f t e r enqu i ry and r e p o r t by a

committee appointed by the Council,

before which the Professor shal l be

en t i t l ed t o appea r and , i f h e d e s i r e s ,

t o be represented.

(c)	A ProPessor i s required t o give six
monkhs' notice i f he wishes t o resign
his offlce. "

. 4 .

3 .      Duties

A Trofessor E ;ha l l devote the 5; rhole of h i s

time to t he du t i e s o f h i s o f f i ce . I t s h a l l

be the primary duty of a P ro fes so r t o devo te

h imself to research and the advancement of

knowledE? i n h i s s u b j e c t .

Fe will be respons ib le to the Head of h i s

Department. It will be expected that he will

co lopera te wi th the €Lead of h i s Department

and v i t h h i s c o l l e a g u e s i n t h e r e s e a r c h work

of the DeTartment 2nd of the School as a whole.

b u t c o n s i s t e n t l y w i t h t h i s p r i n c i p l e h e w i l l

not be subject to direct ion by the Head o f h i s

Pepartmenr:  i n r e s p e c t of t h e r e s e a r c h work which

he w i l l h inse lE car ry  oat 2nd may d i r e c t as.-.

Professor . 

These conditions were signed by t h e a p p l i c a n t

and r e tu rned t o t he Reg i s t r a r o f t he In s t i t u t e of

Advanced Studies .

k change occur red to the appl icant ’s du t ies

i n 1975 vhen the University Council spproved the

establishment of a Cent re for Fore ign Tol i t ics

(Western Europe) within the Research School o f Soc ia l

Sciences. He was appointed head oE the Centre . The

appl icant was informed of t h i s by l e t t e r the

Regis t rar of the Universi ty dated 1 4 February 1975 . - _-

The l e t t e r s t a t e d : -

“You will be respons ib le to the d i rec tor

f o r t h e management oE the Centre but in

o ther respec ts the condi t ions o f

ap?ointment whic5 you signed on

9 December 1966 will remain unchanged.”

The app l i can t r ep l i ed on 17 February 1975

ag ree ing t o t hese new arrangements.

On or about 16 A p r i l 1981 he went on

extended s	ick	leave	and i n September las t arrangements	-	_ -
were	made	f o r	him	t o	be exanined by the Comomiealth

Medical Officer on 8 September 1981.

On 7 September the secre ta ry wrote t o the

Commonwealth Medical Officer confirming this appointment

and enclosing a s ta tement of his dut ies and

r e spons ib i l i t i e s i nc lud ing conmmts on h i s work

performance	and	a	curr iculum vi tae .	The	l e t t e r went
on: -

“AS you t r i l l see there has been concern

about Professor Eurns‘ academic performance

i n recent	years.	Since	16 A p r i l 1961 he
has	a l so been	on exter.cled	s ick leave.
Because o f the foregoing	University	thc	I --

wishes t o know whether Professor Burns

has any medical condition such that it

is	un l ike ly t ha t he	i s	f u l l y f i t t o
ca r ry	out	h i s d u t i e s	and	r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .

Deta i l s o f h i s s ick l eave absences are

a t tached and a r e p o r t from h i s doc to r .....

will be made ava i l ab le t o you p r i o r t o t h e

appointment	time”.
The	l e t t e r couc luded : -

"I would. now bc gra teEul i f you would f u r n i s h

me wi th a r eFor t on uhether you consider

Professor	Burns	i s	E i t o r un f i t f o r con t inued
employment	i n h i s p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n a n d ,	i f	you

f i n d h i m unfit , whether he should be granted

f u r t h e r sick l e a v e o r r e t i r e d on the grounds of

i n v a l i d i t y . "

P r i o r t o t h e w r i t i n g of t h i s l e t te r t h e a p p l i c a n t

had s a id t ha t t he l i s t of pub l i ca t ions i n h i s cu r r i cu lum

v i t a e was incomplete and he was i r w i t e d t o p r o d u c e t o t h e

-

Commonwealth Med ica l	Of f i ce r	de t a i l s	o f	zny	pub l i ca t ions	.	--
omit ted.

The Commonwealth Medical Off icer ' s report , fol lowing

th i s examination, stated under the heading "Prognosis":-

"Not good. He i s a se r ious ly ill man"

She went on to s t a t e t ha t she cons ide red t he

appl icant unf i t €or cont inued employment and t h a t he should

be re t i red on the grounds of i n v a l i d i t y .

F o l l o v i n & r e c e i p t o f t h i s r e p o r t t h e a p p l i c m t was

interviewed by t h e Vice Chancellor of the University on

22 September 1981. There i s a dispute as to exac t ly what

was sa id bu t i t i s suf f ic ien t fc r p resent purposes to say

. _-

t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t was informed of the Com.onvealth EIedicaL

O f f i c e r ' S opinion and tha t t he ma t t e r would be brought before

the Council of the Univers i ty for i t s decis ion.

There i s l i t t l e doubt that as a r e s u l t of t h a t

in tc rv ie~r the appl icant be l ieved the Counci l might re t i re

him on the ground o € i n v a l i d i t y .

Correspondcnce than took place bctween t h e

appl icant and the Universi ty and between the app l i can t ’ s

s o l i c i t o r and t h e U n i v e r s i t y ’ s s o l i c i t o r s . A s a r e s u l t

of this correspondence	a	decis ion on h i s r e t i r -	ornent t7as
defer red un t i l the meet ing	of	the Council held on	1 3 November

1081 and h i s s i c k l e a v e was extended accordingly.

On 11 Movenber 1981 t h e a p p l i c a n t v r o t e t o the

Regis t rar of the Universi ty informing	him	that	an	appointment
had been	made	fo r t he app l i can t t o have	an	electroencephaLogram

on	23 Kovember	through	a	s p e c i a l i s t	who	had been unable to
arrange	it	f o r an	e a r l i e r d a t e .	On	1 2 November he	=gain

wrote to the Registrar reques t ing tha t the Counci l o r o ther

oEfice holders not determine the matter of his retirement

before he had rece ived the repor t on this e lectroencephalogram.

Copies of these le t ters were placed before the

Coinc i l a t i t s meeting on 1 3 November 1981 bur apparent ly a

dec is ion 772s made to p roceed wi th the cons idera t ion o f h i s

re t i rement . The Council a t thnt meeting resolved to t e rmina te

h i s appointment v i t h t t , e Un ive r s i ty i n t he t e rns to which I b3-ve

r e fe r r ed . a l r eady . _-

On 23 ??ovember 2 9 S l t he app l i can t r eques t ed t he

Un ive r s i ty	t o	fu rn i sh	a	s t a t e m e n t	i n	w r i t i n p	r e l a t i n g	t o
i t s	dec is ion	in	accordance wi th	s.13	of	the	Act.	O n

4 December 1982 the Universi - ty not i f ied him t h a t as a matter

of l a u he was n o t e n t i t l e d t o make the reques t .

E .

I n t h e l i g h t o f t hese f ac t s , t he ques t ion

before me i s .cJl,ctber the appl icant i s e n t i t l e d t G a

d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o make the reques t

of the Universi ty .

Sect ion 13(1) of t h e Act provides:-

"13. (1) Where a person makes a dec is ion to wbich

t h i s s e c t i o n a p p l i e s , any person who is

e n t i t l e d t o	make	an appl ica t ion	to	the
Cour% under section	5	i n r e l a t i o n	to	t h e

dec is ion may, by n o t i c e i n w r i t i n g g i v e n

t o the person who nade the decis ion, reqEest

him t o f u r n i s h a statement i n w r i t i n g . --

se t t i ng ou t t he f i nd ings	on	material
quest ions	of	f a c t , r e f e r r i n g t o t h e e v i d e n c e
o r o t h e r m a t e r i a l	on	which those f indings

were based and g iv ing the reasons for the

dec is ion . "

The phrase "decis ion to which t h i s Act applies"

i s def ined i n s.3 as f o ~ ~ o v 7 s : -

"dec i s ion t o which t h i s Act appl ies" neaz:s a

dec is ion of an adminis t ra t ive character made,

proposed t o be made, o r r equ i r ed t o be made,

as the case may be (whether in the exercise of

a d i sc re t ion o r no t ) unde r an e n a c t m n t , o t h e r

than a decision by the Governor-General or a

decision included in any of t he c l a s ses o f I,

dec is ions se t ou t in Schedule 1;

I n t h e same section "enactment" i s def ined as

f O l l O t 7 S : - - _-

"'enactment' means

( a ) an Act other than the Comonweaith

Places	(Application	of Laws) A c t 1970
o	r	the Northern Terr i tory (Self

Government) Act 1 S78 ;

( b ) ~ T I Ordinance of a T e r r i t o r y o t h e r t h a n t h e

Northern Terr l tory;

( C ) a n k s t r u m e n t ( i n c l u d i n g r u l e s , r e g u l a t i o n s

o r by-laws) m a d e under such an A c t o r under

such an Ordlnancc; or

( d ) a ~ X J , o r a p a r t of a 1 ~ 7 . of the 'Korthern

Ter r l to ry dec la red by t h e r e g u l a t i o n s , i n

accordance 1 7 i t t ? scLtion 191:. to be an

enzctrwnt for the purposes of t h i s A c t ,

and, for the F u r p o s e s oT para[;raph ( a ) , ( L ) o r ( c ) ,

includcs n p,arL: G! an cnactmcl?t;"

.. 9.

As appears frorn S. 13(1 ) , the right to make a

request under that sub-section is limited EO lra person

who is entitled to make an application to the Court

under s.5 in relation to the decision.	Section 5 of
the Act gives that right to	a person who is aggrieved
by the	decision.

Under s.3(4)(a)(i) it is provided that a reference

to a person aggrieved by a decision includes a reference-

- --

"to a person whose interests are	adversely affected by
the decision.Il

Section 13(11) provides -thatIra decision to which

tnis section	appliesll means a decision that is a decision
to which the Act applies but does not include	-

"(a) a decision in relation to rhich sec-Lion 28

of the Admlnistrative Appeals	Tribunal Act
1975 applies;

(b)	a decision that includes, or is accompanied
by a statement sett1ng out, Findings of
facts, a reference to the evidence or
other material on which those f.i.ndings
were based and the reasons f o r the decision; or
(c)	a dpcision included in any o? +he classes
of decision set out in Schedllle 2." - --
Clearly enough, neither paragraphs	(a) nor (b)

of s.13(11) are applicable to this case.

I will subsequently refer, in greater detail,

t o Schedule 2 of the Act. II; ic sufficient to say, a t

tnis stage, that t nc Schedul-e ccatains nc provision

excluding from t'ne application of s.13 a

ckcisicn rnade by - the Council of the University on l 3 November

. 10

4

It follows fron thls analysis that, if the

decisior. macle by the Council was a decision to which the

Act applies, the applicant vas entitled to make the

request pursuant to S. 13( l ) . F o r there can be no doubt

that, if it was such a decision, the applicant's interests

were adversely affected by	it ard he vould therefore,
given approprizte grounds, be entitled	Lo make an

application in relation to it under s.5 a f the Act. -

Everything turns, therefore, on whether the _-

decision in question was Ita decision to which this Act

zpplies". Stated shortly, this involves determining

whether it was	I1a decision of an adminiscrative character
made.. ....... or required CO be made (whether	in -the

I!

exercise of a discretion or c o t ) under an enactment ..,...

The applicant says it was clearly a decision of

an administrative character made under	an enactment,
namely, the Australian National University Act	1946
("the Ilniversity ActTT). The University says	it vras n o t

a decislon "of	8n administrative characterr1	but, even
if it was, it was made, not under	that Act, but, under	__
the contract	of service between	it m d -the applicant which

was entcred into on 9 Oecember 1966.

The ansrrer -to these opposing contentions depends,

in part, on a consideration of the University Act.

Sect ion 4 of the L‘niversity Act e s t ab l i shed

a t Canberra a Universi ty consis t ing	of a Council	and
Convocation and graduate	and	under-graduate nsnbers.

It a l s o provided tha t the Univers i ty sha l l be a body

corporate by	t h e name	o f	“The	Aus t ra l ian Rat iona l
University“	and	t h a t by	t h a t name	i t s h a l l have

perpetual succession and a cormon s e a l and be capable by that

-

name o f suing, being sued, hcldixg property, acting as trustee,

grant ing and sel l - in: property e tc .

Sect ion 6 of the Universi ty Act gives t h e

University tho following FUnctLons: -

I , (a) To encourage, and p r o v i d e f a c i l i t i e s f o r ,

post-graduate research and study, both

penera l ly and i n r e l a t i o n t o s u b j e c t s of

nat ional importance to Austral ia ;

(b) To p r o v i d e f a c i l i t i e s f o r un ive r s i ty educa t ion

for persons who e l ec t t o ava i l t hemse lves of

t h o s e f a c i l i t i e s	2nd	a r e e l i g i b l e	s o	t o do;
and

(c) Sub jec t t o t he S t a tu t e s , t o award and confer

degrees and diplcmas”.

*

Sect ion 7 p rov ides t ha t t he re sha l l be, within

- _-

the Universi ty , an Institute oE Advanced Studies and a

group of f a c u l t i e s and other bodies, as determined by the

Counci l , to be knosm as’The Faculties.” The I n s t i t u t e is

t o comprise research schools i n r c l a t i o n t o ( i n t e r a l i a )

t he soc i a l s c i ences and the ntmss of those schools , the

f i c l d s o f l ea rn ing , with one excepr ion , in re la t ion to

which they arc established, and the Dcpn*-tmer!ts t l l e reof , a re

to be as determined Ly the Council.

Section 10 of the university Act provides that

the governing authcrity oE the University shall be the

Council and ss . 11 to 15AA (inclusive) deal with the Council's constitution, membership and meetings.

Provision is also made for a Board of the

Institute (s.15A); a Eoard of The Faculties	(S-1%);
a Professorial Board of the University	(s.15D) and

-

Convocation There are several sections relevaot (S. 1 6 ) . - -

to the

powers of the Council. Section 23 is the basic

provision and provides:-

"23.	Subject to this Act and the Statutes, the Council nay from tine to time appoint
deans, professors, lecturers, examiners 2nd
other officers and servants of the
University, and s h a l l have the entire
control and management of the affairs and
conccrns of the University, and nay act
in all natters concerning the University
in such manner as appears to it best
calculated to promote the interests of
the University. "

Sections 7 6 and 26A deal with the control and

management by the Council	of property and contracts	by	~ _-
the University.

Section 2 7 ( 1 ) enpovers the Council from time to

time to make, alter and repeal Statutes with respect to a l l

or any of a large nunber of natters. They include such

matters as the maneFenent, good	govcmment and discipline
of the University (s.27(1)(2)),	the natriculation,

adr?lssior. and enro Lvpnt	of	s tudents ( ( j ) (h)),	the grantinE
of dezrees, diploaas, certificates	and	honours	( ( T ) ( k ) )

and the prcvision of superannuation benefits ((l)(t).

Also included amongst them is the following:-

( g ) The numbzr, stipend, canner of appointment

and dismissal 05 deans. professors,

lecturers, examiners and other officers	I .
and servants of the University.

A number of Statutes have been made by the

Council in exercise of the power conferred-by s.27 but

-

none has been m-de in respect of tfie'matter referred to - --

in ( g ) .

Provision is also made for the making of by-laws,

rules or orders pursuant to provisions contained in

Statutes	( S . 27 (t))	.
By s . 2 8	every Statute whcn approved by the

Council is to bs sealed with the comon seai and transmitted

for the approval of the Governor-General. Upon being so

approved it is to be notified in the Gazette and thereupon

has the force of law. A copy of every such Statute is to

be laid before each House of the Parliament rrithin 15

. _-

sitting days of that House after notification of the

Statute in the Gazette ( s . 2 8 ( 3 ) ) .

Other provisions in the Act relate to finances,

the keepin? and auditirlg of accounts and the preparation

of an annual report. In general no L'ees are chargeable

( s . 2 3 ) ) . The University is esenpted f ron taxation and the

administration S E any rcligious test is forbidden.

. L

There is CO provision € o r the appointment of

a Visi-tor to the Unlversity.

Was it a decision of an administrative character?

The first question is whether the clecision is of

an administrative character.

The word tladministrativetl carries vith it the

notion o f ttmanagingtl I1executingf1 or ”carrying into effect”.

The administration of an enterprise or undertaking whether

a business, a gc;rernment department, a stztutory authority - -

o r educational institution such as a University, inevitably

involves decisions as to the appointment o r dismissal of

officers and other employees. Such decisions are, in my

view, administrative in character. They are a n essential

part of managing, running	or adninistering the enterprise
or undertaking.

The decision by the Council of the University to

tsrnlinate the applicant’ S appointment was therefore, in a

general sense, tladrninistrative in character”.

Under the clefinition in question, the decisions of

an administrative character which are referred to are those

. ._

“made under an enac tmenttl. In this contex-c, “administrative”

is clearly used to dlstinguish	the decisions the
legislature has in mind from those which are judicial	or
legislative. This distinction hovever does	not Sear directly

on the present case because the decision was clearly

veither judicial r1or legislative.

Therc is stlll IcTt for consideration the actual

meaning of the wgrd lladministrativcll in the context of

"decisions of an administrative character made or

r equ i r ed t o be rrade.. . . . .under an enactnent".

It i s obviously unwlss t o a t t eqp- t a comprehensive

d e f i n i t i o n b u t , i n my opinion, it is a t l e a d a p t t o

desc r ibe a l l t hose dec i s ions , ne i t ' ne r j ud ic i a l no r

l e g i s l a t i v e i n c h a r a c t e r , which I l i n i s t e r s , public servan-ts

government agencies and others m a k e i n the exe rc i se o f

statuto-ry power conferred 02 them, vhether by Act o f the

Parliament o r by de lega ted l eg is la t ion . In o t h e r words it -

a t l e a s t c o v e r s t h e d e c i s x n s Ylade i n executing o r carrying--

i n t o e f f e c t t h e laws of the Commonwealth. Such dec i s ions ,

as the d e f i n i t i o n i n d i c a t e s , may or nay n o t r e q u i r e the

exe rc i se o f a d iscre t ion . Usual ly they will. Q u i t e o f t e n ,

t hey will,	i n the exe rc i se	o f	a	d iscre t ion , involve	the
a p p l i c a t i o n	o f	t h e g e n e r a l t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r ,	e.g.	a	general

r u l e or broadly f ramed powr to par t icular c i rcumstances.

(cf . The Commonwealth and Others v. Grunseit (1943) 67 C.L.R.

58; Tooheys Ltd.	v.	Minis te r
- €or Business and ConsTwner Affairs

(1 981 ) 36 A , L.R. 64 a t pp. 7 2 4 ) . A s t o the neaning o f

tlaclminis-trative act ion" under the	Ombudsman	Act	1973	( V i c . )
s ee Booth v.	Di l lon (No.	1) (1976) V.R.	291 ; Booth v.	D i l l o n

(No. 2 ) 1976 V.R. 434 and Glenis ter v. Dillon (1976) V.R.550).

A decis ion appoint ing a p e r s o n t o o r removing a

person froin a p a r t i c u l a r o f € i c e o r emploTpent made i n the

exe rc i se of a power confer red by l eg is la t ion i s , i n m y opinion,

c l ea r ly admin i s t r a t lve i n cha rac t e r . It is one made

i n t h e c o u r s e o f executing 01' carryln; . in to effect the

law from which t h e power springs. The Par1iamer.t

recognised Y h s , i t r j e l f , j n r e l a - t l on t o r ~ p p o i n t n e n t s t o

t h e p u b l i c s e r v i c e , by spec l f lca l ly exc luding from the

app l i ca t ion of s.17 decisions r e l a t i n g t o the making

of appointments i n t he Aus t r a l i an Pub l i c Se rv ice or

any o ther Serv ice es tab l i shed by an enac tmnt or t o t h e

s t a f f o f a Common7;ealth authority". (See Schedule 2 ,

para. ( t )( i)) .

In p rev ious dec is ions o f th i s cour t under the -

Act, it has been held o r acknowledged tha t dec is inr rs

r e l a t i n g t o employment e.g. promotion i n the p u b l i c

-

s e rv i ce , ar?. dec is ions "of an adminis t ra t ive charactzr" - - -

(See Hamblin v. Jhf fv & Ors. (1981) 34 A.L.R. 333;

Finch v. Goldstein & Ors.(1981) 36 A.L.R.	287). In my opinion
a decis ion t o remove	o r dismiss a person f r o n a p a r t i c u l a r

emploxyment i n the exerc ise o f a power conzerred by m- enactment is l ikewise a decis ion o f an admin i s t r a t ive charac te r .

If the rezo re t he dec i s ion o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y t o

tsrminzte the applicantvs appointment as a p r o f e s s o r was

"made under an enac tmnt" it was, i n my view, a dec i s ion

o f an ach in i s t r a t ive cha rac t e r and the rz fo re one t o 1.rhich

t h e Act app l i e s . . _-

Was the dec is ion made under an enactmsnt?

It was submitted on bzhalf of the Univers i ty

t h a t	the	dec is ion was	r.ot	made	"under an enactment?' but
I1uncler9l	t he con t r ac t	o€	se rv ice between	the	Univers i ty

and the appl icar l t .

No s ta tu te has been made by the Council pursuant

t o S-2'7 (1 ) ( g ) OF the Unlversl ty Ac l: r e l a t i n g to the manner

of ap2,n intmenI; an;:	alsrnl.ssa1 o€ professors .	Therefore
the povcr exercxsed by	th? Counc i l ,	as the governing

' : l

17.

au thor i ty o f the University, i n appoinLing the app l i can t ,

vas tha t confer red o n it by S. 23.

Counsel f o r the Univers i ty argued,hoT:rever, t h a t

even i f the appointment o f t he app l i can t was an ahinis t ra t ive

dec is ion made "under an enactment" t h a t i s , under s.23

(which vas n o t conceded) , the decis ion t o t e r n i n a t e h i s

appoiatment was	made	under	c l a u s e 2 ( b ) ( i i )	o f	-&e	cond i t ions
of appointment.

-

In dea l ing wi th th i s ques t ion it is as well t o - _ _

have i n mind the ob jec t 2nd purpose o f t he Act (s.15Aa Acts

I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Ac t 1901 ) . Sect ion 13 is c lear ly des igned

t o enable a c i t i z e n whose i n t e r e s t s a r e a d v e r s e l y a f e e c t e d

by a d e c i s i o n t o which -the sec Lion a p p l i e s , t o o b t a i n a

s t a t e m a t in virTting concerning the reasons f o r it i n the

terms s p c i f i e d i n	sub-S.	(l)	It confers a bas i c righ.%	.
which	the c i t i zen p rev ious ly	d id	no t	have except where
l eg i s l a t ion expres s iy r equ i r ed	it	or	t he app l i ca t ion	OS^

r u l e s o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e demznded it. Those exe rc i s ing

adminis t ra t lve power under Common:srealth enactrll.ents were

not xnder a general duty t o give reasons. Up t o a po in t , - _ _

they were en tz t led to h ide behind a wal l o f s i l ence . A

c i t i zen adve r se ly a f f ec t ed cou ld , o f course , a t tempt to

use	t h z prmogat ivz writ	procedure	t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t	a
dec is ion	was	d2Eective but this procedure	was	u n l i k e l y t o

be of value ~f the reasons f o r the decision cou1.d not be

proved. Therefore pi-lor t o tfle enac tnent o f s.13, a

persorl V J ~ O S C i n t e r e s t s wcre adversvly affcc ted by an

adminis t ra t ive decis ion might be deprived o f a remedy

even though the decision was a c t u a l l y d e f e c t i v e i n law.

It was l a r g e l y t o remedy this s i t u a t i o n that the s e c t i o n

was enacted.

The Administrative Revielr Counci l es tab l i shed by

the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (s.48) has

s t a t e d sone o f the purposes o f imposing the obl igat ion under

s.13 o f the Act t o furn ish s ta tements o f reasons, It has

s a i d i n terms I am happy t o a d o p t t h a t t h e y i n c l u d e - -

--

( a ) t o overcome t h e r e a l g r i e v a n c e persons

experience when they are n o t t o l d why

something affect ing them has been done;

(b) t o enable persons affected by a d e c i s i o n

t o s e e what was t&en i n t o account and

whether an error has been made s o t h a t they

may determine whether to chal lsnge the

dec i s ion and vhat means to adopt Tor doing so.

(See Administrative Review Council S-ta temen t o f Reasons :

An Explanatory Memorandum para 9 , The Australian -Administrative

Law Service (Pearce) pp. 5003-5010. See too Administrative

Appeals Tribunal Act 7975 ss. 28, 37, 38; Re Palner and Min i s t e r

f o r t h e CaDital T e r r i t o r y (1978) 1 A.L.D. 183 a t pp. 192 e t seq;

Iveach (Earl of) and Others v. Minis ter o f HousTng and Local

- Goveroment and Pnother (1964) 1 Q.B. 395 a t pp. 405 and 410;-

I n Re Poyser and i h l l s ' Arb i t r a t ion (1964) 2 Q.B. 467 a t

pp. 469-470).

Sectloll 13 o f t h e Act covers a v i d e variety of

dec is ions . It extends beyond the dec i s ions of PIinisters and

publ ic se rvants to those confer red on s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t i e s

and o t h e x by an enacLment. Thc o n l y s ign i f i can t excep t ions

_-
i.

a r e those by the Governor-General and those by p e r s o n s a c t i n g - -

under	la:~s r e l a t i n g -to	Northern	the	Terri-tory.	L	-
.F.
-.
-

Schedt:le 2 o f the Act by cuc lud iug ce r t a in

d e c i s l o m f r o p ths app l i ca t ion o f s.13 gives somc idea

o f the sccpe and operat ion v:hich the draftsinan thought

the sect ion might have.

Paragraph ( k ) is a s u f f l c i e n t example for t h e

purpcses or^ t h i s c a s e . It excludes the decis ions o f a

number oP a E t h o r i t i e s " i n r e s p e c t o f t h e i r c o r a e r c i a l

ac t iv i t i e s t1 . Inc luded among those bodies a re the

Aus t ra l ian Nat ion21 Ai r l ines Cormnission, t he Aus t r a l i an

Wheat Soard, the Cvlberra Commercial Development Author i ty

and t h e Commonveal-th Savings Bank o f Aus t ra l ia .

It is tc be noted that , s tanding a lone, the

p h r a s e " d c c i s i o n s i n r e s p e c t	OF	Lheir	cgmn?.ercial
ac-tivikiesll is wide	enough	t o cover decisions	made by

t h e s e a u t h o r i t i e s	i n	exerc ise	o f	con t r sc tua l r i gh t s .
Wlletl~er it	b e a r s t h a t	meaning	in paragraph	( k ) , i t is,

i n my view: unnecessary t o d e c i d e i n t h i s c a s e b u t the

exc lus ion of t hese dec i s ions desc r ibed i n pa ra (k) does

lend support - to the agreement that decisions by a

s t t i t u to ry au tho r i ty i n exe rc i se of the general powers

confer red on it are decisions "under an enactmmtrl f o r

the purpose	o f	t h e	Act even though thsy are	also	dec i s ions
which	are	made	i n e x e r c i s e	oP	con t r ac tua l r i gh t s .

A consicioratlon or^ t hc ncl; c lear ly emphas ises

i t s a o t e n t i a l l y broac'. scope and remedial character i n

c r e a t i n g new pi-ocedural rmedies and a r i g h t t o receive a

wri t t en	s ta tement	regarding	reasons.	It	s h o u l d ,	c o n s i s t e n t
with	i t s	larguage, be given	a	broad as opposed	t o a	narrow

c o n s t r u c t i o n and one which will se rve t o ach ieve t he b road

o b j e c t s and purposes Parliament had i n mind. (See Evans v-

Friemann and Others (1981) 35 A.L.R. 428 at p.435).

Consis tent with this approach, I am o f the o p i n i o n

t h a t i f a s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y makes a d e c i s i o n by which a

person	i s aggrieved,	which	i s made	unde r b road s t a tu to ry
pcwers but	whi-ch	l i e s a t t h e v e r y h n a r t	o f	t h o s e f u n c t i o n s
for	which the body	was	e s t a b l i s h e d b y s t a t u t e , t h e	courts

shocld be slow t o f i n d t h a t s u c h a dec i s ion , if a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

i n c h a r a c t e r , i s no t macie !'under an enac tment'l simply

because the occasion for the exercise o f ths power arises

ou t 07 a con t rac tua l s i t ua t ion . The c l e a r o b j e c t o f the

Act i s t o c o n f e r r i g h t s on aggr i eved c i t i zens as a result

o f t h e e x e r c i s e o f pGi-rers corLerred by a n enactment on

H i n i s t e r s , p u b l i c s e r v m - t s , s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t i e s and

o t h e r s . I n many cases Yne power exercised will be p r e c i s e l y

s ta ted. i n t h e l e g i s l a t i o n . I n o t h e r c a s e s the power t o do

a p a r t i c u l a r t h i n g w i l l be found i n a broadly statcd

power.	The Act	should	not	be	confined	t o cases where
t h e p a r t i c u l a r	po'ver	i s	p r e c i s e l y s t a t c d .	I n	each	case

t he ques t ion t o be as!:ed is one o f suhs ta rxe , rhether, i n

e f z e c t , the dccic lon is inade "urlder an enactment" o r o therwisc .

I t doe; not fo l lo i : from th i s app?-oach that i n

cases o f a s ta tutrJry author I zy, s u c h a:, the LJnivcrsity,

every riecision I +, makes i.s madc "unrl:.r" [:he p a r t i c u l a r

s t a t u t e . Each case s h o u l b be considered separ2-teLy to

i d e n t i f y t h e s u b s t a n t i a l b a s i s upon vhich the ?oIrer is

exe rc i sed . But i t w o ~ l d be wrong, i n ny view, to exc lude

from the operation of th.e Act fundalnsntal decisions of the

Unive r s i ty ( a body crea ted by s t a tu t e ) t h rough i ts Council

about natters l y i n g a t t h e v e r y h e a r t o f i ts existence and

essential t o t h e f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e b a s i c f u n c t i o n fo r which

t he Un ive r s i ty was s e t up by Parliament. The establishment

o f t he Un ive r s i ty as an autonomous s t a t u t o r y body independent

OF Government i s suoported ._ by nany provisions in the

Universi ty Act . This emphasises the scope and importance

of the powers i t exe rc i se s .

Ir. t h i s c a s e , tf.e Council o f the U n i v e r s i t y

appoin ted the appl icant a p r o f e s s o r i n e x e r c i s e of the powers

confer red on i t by s s . 10 end 2 3 G € t he Un ive r s i ty A c t .

Sec t ion	23	recopnises che signiEicance	o f t h e	power	t o
appoint deans and professors	by	p lac ing	i t f irst	zmong	the
powers	vhich the Counci l	i s	t o e x e r c i s e s u b j e c t	to	the A c t

and tine S ta tu t e s . Th i s is not surpr i s ing because such

ap?ointments are so fundamenta l to the fu l f i lment o f the

UniversTty’s functions under 5.6.

Another aspect of the Ccuncil‘s powers ix rc lat lon

to the agpointment and dismissal of proressors t o b e borne

i n mind i s i t s poxier t o make s t a t u t e s OR numerous matters

inc ludinz the number, s t i p e n d , manner of appointment and

clismis-,aJ of deans and p ro fes so r s e t c . Konc €;as bccn made

on t h i s s u b j e c t bvr such R s t a t u t e , i f made, Woul-d, when

ap?roved	by	the Governor-General	and notified	i n	t h e	Gazette,
have	the	force	or lav. It wauld,	having	regard	t o t h e

def in i t ion o f “enac tment“ be an enactment for the purposes of

the Act and if it contained powers of u i smis sa l the d e c i s i o n

t o e x e r c i s e t h o s e powers would, i t seems t o ne, b e d e c i s i o n s

under an enactment.

The appointment of the appl icant ~ 2 made subject s

t o a condi t ion givinE the Counci l power t o t e r m i n a t e his

appointment 2nd remove him from off ice i n t h e circumstances

t h e r e i n set ou t . I n cer ta in events (a l leged misconduct o r

inefEiciency) an enquiry has f i r s t t o be he ld -

When the Counci l vas confronted with t h e t e r m i n a t i o n

of Professor Burns’ appointment on the ground of permanent

i ncapac i ty , t he ques t ion be fo re i t , i n ny opinion, vent far

.. beyond t h e mere exe rc i se of a power under hi.s a n d i t i n n s of

appointment and involved, as w e l l , t h e e x e r c i s e of the powers

and discret ions conferred on i t under the Univers i ty A c t as

the governing authority of the Univnrsi . ty.

The involuntary terminat ion o f a p ro fes so r ’ s tenure

i s a matter involv ing ques t ions of g e n e r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e t o

a University, one which is capable oE r a i s i n g i s s u e s fa r

beyond the c i rcumstances o f the par t icu lar p rofessor .

The involuntary t e rmina t ion of p rofessor ia l t enure is a

n o t o r i o u s l y s e n s i t i v e i s s u e , e . g . Orr’s Case ( f o r High Court

proceedings see ( 1 9 5 7 ) 1 0 0 C.L.I?. 5 2 6 ) . It is v i t a l CO thc

f u l f i l m e n t of the Univcrs i ty’s Euncrions a s an fndcpendent

.

. 2 3 .

e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u c i o n c o x l i t t e d t o the s e a r c h f o r

t r u t h	t h a t	the t enure	of	i t s p r o f e s s o r i a l s t a f f b e	free
f r o m a r b i t r a r y	a t t a c k .	I	can	think	o f no pr inci?Le more

b a s i c t o t h e e x i s t e n c e of a U n i v e r s i t y i n a free s o c i e t y .

The not ion the t in the involunt .a ry t e rmina t ion o f a

professor 's a?pointment	i t	i s merely acting under	the	terns
of apDointment	_ _	and not under	i t s bas i c s ta tu te as well,	in

my vier?, debases the very p r inc ip le upon rihich the University

i s founded - academic	freedon.	This	i s rihy,	i n my oFin ion ,
the	d e c i s i o n f o r i n v o l u n t a r y t e r n i n a t i o n	o f	a	proEessor ' s

apyointment i s of a fundanental character and when it is

made by a U n i v e r s i t y s e t up by s t a t u t e , i t i s inescapably

one which i s made i n exerc ise o f the povers conEerred by

s t a tu t e , even i f the occa-s ion for i t s e x e r c i s e erises as a

result o f a. contractual arrangement.

Furthermore the conditions of appointmmt in this

case were no t t a i l o red only fo r Professor Burns, but appear,

on t h e i r f a c e , t o be the genera l ccgdi t ions used a t the time

for the appointment of a p r o f e s s o r t o the I n s t i t u t e of

Advanced Studies o ther than one in charFe o f a department.

T h e i r e x e r c i s e i n	't'nis	case could provide	a	d i rec t p receden t
i n o t h e r s .

.- Eecause of considerat ions such as thesc, the Counc i l

i n consider ing t*rhether to exercise i t s pover to t e rmina te

Professor Burns' appointrncnt under the conditions of

appointr.ent would, i n m] vicx, inevitlably hc a c t i n g i n exercise

of t he pene ra l po:.rccs i t has ur.tlcr s s . 1 0 and 23 of the

Univers i ty Act as the eovexning a u t l w r i t y o f tbc University

with I t s e n t i r e rnannPement and control and the power and

duty t o ac t	a s	appea r s	bes t	ca l cu la t ed	t o	p roco te	i t s
i n t e r e s t s .

Not o n l y i s the appointnent and t enure of

p ro fes so r i a l s t a f f fundamen ta l t o t he Un ivs r s i ty ' s func t ions .

A professor such as the appl icant , once appointed, has certain

r igh t s wh ich a r e con fe r r ed upon him under the University A c t .

He i s e n t i t l e d t o b e a member o f t h 2 P r o f e s s o r i a l Board which

advises the Universi ty Counci l on	natters	r e l a t i n g	t o
educa t ion , l ea rn ing , r e sea rch o r t he academic	work	o f	the

Univers i ty . Iie i s e l i g i b l e f o r e l e c t i o n t o the Council and

i s e n t i t l - e d t o v o t e f o r t h e e l e c t i o n t o t h e C o u n c i l VE a

pro fes so r i n t h e I n s t i t u t e . ( s . l l ( l ) ( g ) ) . Tie i s a l s o e l i g i b l e

t o be appointed Chairman of t b e Board of t h e Ins t i tu te or t o

be e l e c t e d t o i t in t h e manner provided by the Stazu tes

(s.l5A(l) ( e ) ) . I have not purported to give a c o q l e t e .

s ta tement oE t h e r i r h t s which flow from appointment as a

p r o f e s s o r w i t h i n t h e I n s t i t u t e o f A ~ v a n c e d S t u d i e s - Ihac

L have s a i d i s s u f f i c i e n t t o show f irst , t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of

t h e o f f i c e of professor within the Universi ty and its

adminis t ra t ive and execut ive s t ruc ture and , secondly that a

prof?ssor may, i n a d d i t i o n t o b-is professorsh ip , have ach ieved

o t h e r o f f i c e w i t h i n t h e U n i - v e r s i t y on bod ies e s t ab l i shed by

the Un ive r s i ty	P.ct	and	t h a t i f h i s a p p o i n t m e n t	is	terminated
i n v o l u n t a r i l y i t	caE	nEfectr,ot	only	his	professor iaL te rmre
?)ut a l s o	tbose	o the r	oc i i ces .	In	a given case thc offices so

held could be of considerable inr2ortance t o t h c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

of che University e . g . Chairman o f t he T<oartl o € t h e T n s t i t u t e .

I n dc.cLding to terminate such a proEcssol-‘s appointment,

as a professor , the Counci l r.Tould c lear ly have to t2ke in to

account the ramif ica t ions	i t r7ould	have	f o r t h e	University
as a t7hole -

There i s no evidence before me of any pos i t ion

which the appl icant holds apar t f rom being a oenber of t h e

Professor ia l Board and bead of the Centre for Foreign

Polit ics (bJestern Europe) within the Research School of S o c i a l

Sciences. But the question I a m consider ing i s the nature

of t h e power which the Council exercises when it dec ides t o

terminate the appointment oE a professor . The fac t t h a t i n

h i s c a s e i t would have l e s s e r r a n i f i c e t i o n s t h a n in o t h e r s ,

does no t s een t o m e t o m z t t e r . It 17ould n o t a f f e c t t h e nature

o f t h e power i t s e l f .	It i s one of a nutaber of factors which
t h a t ,

h2ve l e d m e t o the viex7/ i~ Jec id inp t o t e rmina te the a p p l i c a n t ’ s

appointment as a professor , the Univers i ty , th rcuzh i ts

Council , was making a decis ion “under” the Univers i ty A c t .

It E o i l o w t h a t , i n my opin ion , the Counci l in

d e c i d i n g t o terminate h i s appointment was noc merely e x e r c i s i n g

a power under the condi t ions of his appointment but was also

making a decis ion under the Universi ty Act of an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

cha rac t e r . Th i s means tha t , p r ima f ac i e a t least, the

z.-oplicant i s e n t i t l e d t o a d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t h e was ent i t led t o

mzke t h e r e q u e s t f o r a writ ten s ta tement undzr s - l3( l ) of

rhe k t .	Such a statement	should	set	out	not	only	t h e r e a s o n s
f o r t h e	dcc i s ion but	a l s o	the	finc1inf;s	on	nateriaZ	q u e s t i o n s of

f a c t 2nd should rc-fer t o L h e evidence or oc1lc?r material on whicI1

t h o s e findings were based .

L U .

Needless to say a k n o x l e d ~ e of those matters is

fundanencal to Professor Burns' capacity to defend himself.

From such a statement he should be b e t t e r a b l e to determine

t rhethcr the Universi ty has erred - f o r i n s t a n c e rrhether it

acted on insuff ic ient medtcal evidence, wb-ether f t should have

acted on the ground o f i n e f f i c i e n c y i f i t wished t o act and

should have es tabl ished a Connittee of Inqu i ry ber'ore irhich

he could appear or whether it ac t ed with undue haste and

should have waited, before making a d e c i s i o n , u n t i l fie hc3

an oppor tun i ty t o p rov ide t he r e su l t s of the electroencephalograr;:

and other medical advice. It nay show tha t he has no grounds

Eor complaint a t all.

Huch of t h e a r p m e n t i n ch i s ca se r e I a t ec? t o t h e

ques t ion whether the cour t s would intervene on the basis of a

d e n i a l oE n a t u r a l j u s t i c e	o r whether,	i f	it r r 2 s	a	m e r e master
and	se rvan t r e l a t ionsh ip , t he app l i can t shou ld	be	left	te	his

r i g h t s t o b r i n g a n a c t i o r ! f o r wron,pful dismissal- (See

University Council of Vidyodaya, Unive-csity of Ceylon v. S i l v a

(1965) 1 W.L.R.	7 7 ) ;	_-	Mallocf! v.Aberdeen Corporation (1971)
I K.L.R.	157E p e r Lord	b7ilberEorce	ar pp- 1595-6; O r r v.

Univers i ty of Tasmania ( s u p r a ) ) .

I do no t f i nd i t necessa ry t o consider this question

because the i s sue before me, a s I see i t , is one o f c o n s t r u i n g

the s t a tu t e t o de t e rmine vhe the r t he app l i can t is en t i t l ed tu

reasons under s.13. It does not necessarily Zollow that

c

- I

, L ' 2 7 .

, 4 1

because he i s cnt i t jec! to reasons, he i s also e n t i t l e d t o relief

under S . 5 of the Act or to the issus of a prerogatixre rrit i n

the I i igh Court . Iie n a y f i n d t h a t h i s o n l y remedy ( i f any)

i s an ac t ion for wrongful d i smissa l .

I \.]as a l so r e f e r r e d t o an unreported d e c i s i o n of

Barker J. i n - Dwen v. Youn: and Karicato Val ley Author i ty

Supreme Court of Few Zealand (15 December 1978). Although

bear ing on the i s sue before me, i t does not : i n my view,raise

the same ques t ion re l .a t ine as i t does t o a d i f f e r e n t statute

and d i f fe ren t c i rcumstances .

Another quest ion ra ised at t h e h e a r i n e i s whether

I should reEuse to make a declarat ion under s.13 ( 4 N (b)

no twi ths t and in r my view tha t the dec is ion in ques t ion is one

t o which the sec t ion appl ies . In my o p i n i o n , n o s u f f i c i e r t

ground exis ts for reEusing t u do s o .

T. propose therefore t o d e c l a r e t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t

w a s e n t i t l e d t o make t he r eques t made by h i m by l e t t e r t o

the Un ive r s i ty da t e3 23 Xovenber 1381 and t o o r d e r t h e

U n i v e r s i t y t o p a y t h s a p p l i c a n t ' s c o s t s o f th i s app l i ca t ion .