Minogue v State of Victoria

Minogue (the applicant) brought proceedings against the State of Victoria (the respondent) in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant sought to challenge the validity of a notice issued by the respondent under section 10(1) of the *Public Administration Act 2004* (Vic) (the Act). This notice directed the applicant, who was a senior public servant, to attend an interview concerning allegations of misconduct. The applicant contended that the notice was invalid because it failed to comply with the procedural fairness requirements mandated by section 10(1) of the Act.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the notice issued under section 10(1) of the *Public Administration Act 2004* (Vic) was invalid for want of procedural fairness. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the respondent had provided the applicant with adequate notice of the allegations against her and a sufficient opportunity to respond before issuing the direction to attend an interview. This involved an interpretation of the procedural fairness obligations imposed by the Act in the context of investigations into alleged misconduct by public servants.

Gordon J held that the notice was invalid. Her Honour reasoned that section 10(1) of the Act implicitly required the respondent to afford the applicant procedural fairness. This included providing her with sufficient particulars of the alleged misconduct to enable her to understand the case she had to meet and an adequate opportunity to respond to those allegations before the direction to attend an interview was issued. The notice provided did not meet these requirements, as it was vague and did not allow for a meaningful response. Consequently, the notice was found to be procedurally unfair and therefore invalid.