Mathieu v Higgins

Mathieu has commenced judicial review proceedings against Higgins, the Secretary of the Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS). Mathieu, an Acute Care Paramedic employed by QAS, was disciplined by the first respondent for misconduct. Mathieu appealed this decision to the second respondent, who upheld the initial decision. Mathieu contends that the second respondent erred by not defining the term 'misconduct' or explicitly considering its application to Mathieu's conduct. Mathieu argues that this omission meant the second respondent failed to take a relevant consideration into account.

The primary issue before the court was whether the second respondent made an error in not defining 'misconduct' or explicitly considering its application to Mathieu's conduct. The court found that the second respondent was required to consider the term 'misconduct' and its application to Mathieu's conduct but did not do so. The court also considered whether there was sufficient evidence for the second respondent to be reasonably satisfied that Mathieu's actions amounted to misconduct, given the competing expert opinions. The court found that the majority of the evidence indicated that Mathieu failed to provide the standard of care expected by QAS.

The court held that the second respondent failed to take into account a relevant consideration when it did not define 'misconduct' or explicitly consider its application to Mathieu's conduct. The court found that the second respondent was required to consider the term 'misconduct' and its application to Mathieu's conduct but did not do so. The court further found that there was sufficient evidence for the second respondent to be reasonably satisfied that Mathieu's actions amounted to misconduct, given the majority of the evidence. The court concluded that the second respondent's decision was flawed and remitted the matter for decision according to law.

The court will hear the parties as to the appropriate form of orders. The court will set aside the second respondent’s decision and for remission of the matter for decision according to law, and for the respondents to pay the applicant’s costs.