Ombudsman v Laughton

The Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT) had dismissed an application by Mr Laughton, who had sought to appeal the Ombudsman's decision to appoint another person to a position within the Ombudsman's office. Mr Laughton then appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The central dispute concerned whether the Ombudsman, in making decisions regarding internal administrative appointments, was immune from review by the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal (GREAT).

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether section 32 of the *Ombudsman Act 1974* (NSW), which conferred immunity on the Ombudsman, extended to decisions concerning internal administrative matters, such as the appointment of staff. This involved considering the interaction between the *Ombudsman Act 1974* and the *Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal Act 1980* (NSW), particularly section 20 of the latter, which provided for appeals to GREAT. The Court also had to interpret the relevant statutory provisions, including considering the maxim *generalia specialibus non derogant* and the principles of purposive construction under the *Interpretation Act 1987* (NSW).

The Court of Appeal held that the immunity conferred by section 32 of the *Ombudsman Act 1974* was intended to protect the Ombudsman from being compelled to disclose information obtained in the course of investigations, and did not extend to decisions of internal administration. The Court reasoned that the purpose of the immunity was to safeguard the integrity of the Ombudsman's investigative functions, not to shield the Ombudsman from accountability in employment matters. Applying the principle of purposive construction, the Court found that the *Ombudsman Act 1974* did not intend to override the general right of appeal provided by the *Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal Act 1980* in relation to employment disputes. The appeal was therefore dismissed.