Re: ANTON PAUL LUCIC And: ROBERT NOLAN; ALLAN NIMMO JACOBS; JOHN LANGLER; BRIAN FLYNN; SIR WILLIAM COLE; R.J. YOUNG; J.V. MONAGHAN No. G98 of 1982 Administrative law
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION Fitzgerald J.
CATCHWORDS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - judicial review of administrative decisions - public service disciplinary proceedings - extension of time for bringing of application for review - circumstances relevant to application for extension - extension refused.
The Applicant's application for an order that the time for filing his application to review the decision of the Disciplinary Appeal Board be extended to 27th day of October 1982 is dismissed.
JUDGE1
On or about 13 February 1981, the applicant, who was then a Clerk Class 1, in the Buranda (Brisbane) Office of the Department of Social Security on temporary transfer to the Public Service Board's Brisbane office, was charged by the Chief Officer of the Department of Social Security in Brisbane with two instances of alleged improper conduct under s.55 of the Public Service Act 1922. The substance of what was alleged against the applicant was that, at the Personnel Section of the Department, he threatened one officer on 5 February 1981 and on 6 February 1981 he described another officer as "a two-faced bitch". Each notice of charge required the applicant to state whether he admitted or denied the charge and to give any explanation.
The applicant wrote a letter dated 24 February 1981 denying the charges. He claimed that, during the week commencing 3 February 1981, he was in a state of severe depression and anxiety due to frustration with his employment. It is plain from his letter that, on both 5 and 6 February 1981, he was intoxicated when he attended the Personnel Section of the Department. He said that he could not remeber making the statements which led to the charges. Elsewhere, he acknowledged that his "recollection of most events during that period is dull at best". He said that his attendance at the Personnel Section "was symptomatic of my obsession with my employment and the damaging effect it was having on me psychologically. A need being to extricate myself from the morass I was in and make a fresh start. This would explain any aggressive posturing on my part when I spoke to staff of the Personnel Section". Later in his letter he said that if he did make the statements "this would simply have been the manifestation of a fevered imagination". His denial of the offences was expressly founded upon the contention that he did not "knowingly and deliberately" commit them. Rather, according to the applicant:
"If the allegations are true the incidents which are the subject of the allegations are symptomatic of the psychological trauma I have been going through and not the result of any deliberate misconduct on my part."
The applicant's letter concluded with the following…
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.
Continue reading Lucic v Nolan
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Lucic, A.P. v. Nolan, R. & Ors [1982] FCA 232
Case
[1982] FCA 232
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Lucic v Nolan, the applicant, Mr Lucic, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Disciplinary Appeal Board in relation to disciplinary proceedings against him within the public service. The application for review was lodged outside the statutory time limit, and Mr Lucic applied for an extension of time to file his application. The matter was heard by the court which was required to decide whether the extension of time should be granted. The court examined the circumstances of the case, including whether there were any exceptional circumstances that justified the delay in filing the application. The court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient justification for the delay and thus dismissed the application for an extension of time. The court held that the application was brought outside the statutory time limit and there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension. The court's decision was final, and no further orders were made.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Applicant's application for an order that the time for filing his application to review the decision of the Disciplinary Appeal Board be extended to 27th day of October 1982 is dismissed.