Macksville and District Hospital v Mayze

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Macksville and District Hospital, sought to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal concerning the consequences of a breach of natural justice. The respondent, Mr Mayze, had been a practitioner at the hospital, and his appointment had been revoked. Mr Mayze contended that this revocation was made in breach of the rules of natural justice, and the primary judge had found in his favour, declaring the revocation void and directing an inquiry into damages.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a breach of natural justice by a decision-making body automatically confers a right to damages upon the person affected by that decision. The applicant argued that the primary judge erred by proceeding to declare an entitlement to damages without proper argument or determination of that specific issue. The Court of Appeal had also, in the applicant's submission, failed to definitively resolve the question of entitlement to damages, with the majority leaving it for a master to decide.

The applicant's submission was that the primary judge's finding of a breach of natural justice did not, as a matter of law, automatically lead to a right to damages. They contended that the question of entitlement to damages was a separate and distinct issue that had not been adequately argued or determined at first instance. The applicant sought to appeal on the basis that the courts below had not properly addressed this crucial point, leaving the applicant without a clear resolution of the legal consequences of the alleged breach.