Patton, B. v The Honourable K.C. Beazley (Minister for Defence) - [1987] FCA 66

Re: BRIAN WILLIAM PATTON
And: THE HONOURABLE KIM CHRISTIAN BEAZLEY, MINISTER OF STATE FOR DEFENCE and
THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
No. G33 of 1986
Defence
20 IR 298

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Northrop J.
Neaves J.
Beaumont J.

CATCHWORDS

Defence - Military Forces - Royal Australian Air Force - Officer - Appointment on probation for term of years - Short service commission for four years in the Permanent Air Force followed by a period of years in the Air Force Reserve issued - Termination of officer's probationary appointment by Executive Council - No action taken to cancel commission - Whether officer entitled to remuneration after the date of termination of his appointment.

Air Force Act 1923 (Cth), ss.3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4G, 4J

Air Force Regulations, regs 31, 32, 45, 46, 46A, 47, 53, 54B, 57 72, 530

Defence Act 1903 (Cth), ss.12, 117B

Federal Court Rules, Order 11, r.16, Order r.2

HEARING

CANBERRA

#DATE 23:2:1987

The appellant appeared in person.

Counsel for the respondents: Miss M.A. Wilson

Solicitor for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDER

The orders made by Pincus J. on 11 September 1985 be varied by substituting for those orders an order that the proceeding brought by Brian William Patton be dismissed generally, with costs including the costs of the motion dealt with by Pincus J., on the ground that no reasonable cause of action is disclosed.

Otherwise the appeal be dismissed.

The appellant pay the costs of the respondents of the appeal.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

Brian William Patton ("the appellant") has appealed, by leave, from an interlocutory judgment of a single judge of the Court (Pincus J.) given in an action commenced by the appellant against the Honourable Gordon Glen Denton Scholes, Minister of State for Defence, and the Commonwealth of Australia. The Honourable Kim Christian Beazley subsequently became the Minister of State for Defence and the proceedings were amended to substitute him as the first respondent.

The action was instituted by the appellant in the High Court of Australia but was remitted to this Court pursuant to s.44 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The appellant claims to be entitled to be remunerated in accordance with the rates of pay prescribed for an officer of the Royal Australian Air Force with the rank of pilot officer from 7 November 1968. He claims that that entitlement will continue for life or until the commission issued to him in respect of his appointment as such an officer is cancelled pursuant to reg.72 of the Air Force Regulations ("the regulations") made under the Air Force Act 1923 (Cth) ("the Act").
By his amended statement of claim dated 15 October 1984, the appellant asserts that he enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force on 9 March 1965, that he was appointed to be an officer of that Force, with the rank of pilot officer, with…

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 Patton, B. v The Honourable K.C. Beazley (Minister for Defen...

Details

AGLC: Patton, B. v The Honourable K.C. Beazley (Minister for Defence) & Anor [1987] FCA 66 (20 IR 298)
Case: [1987] FCA 66
Decision Date: 23 FEBRUARY 1987

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Patton v Beazley involves Brian William Patton, who sought remuneration from the Commonwealth after his probationary appointment in the Royal Australian Air Force was terminated. The matter was brought before the Federal Court of Australia, with Justice Pincus initially presiding over the matter before the appeal was heard. The central issue in the case was whether Patton was entitled to remuneration after the termination of his probationary appointment, despite his commission not being formally cancelled. The appeal sought to overturn the initial dismissal of Patton's claim, arguing that there was reasonable cause for his action.

The court examined the nature of Patton's appointment and the terms under which it was issued. The appointment was on probation for a term of four years, followed by a period in the Air Force Reserve. The Executive Council terminated the probationary appointment, but no action was taken to cancel Patton's commission. The court needed to determine the legal consequences of this termination, particularly in relation to the payment of remuneration. It was crucial to consider the specific terms of the appointment and the administrative processes that followed the termination.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the termination of the probationary appointment did not automatically entitle Patton to remuneration post-termination. The court found that the process for cancelling a commission was not followed, and as such, the termination did not affect the validity of the commission itself. Consequently, the court concluded that no reasonable cause of action was disclosed in Patton's claim. The appeal was dismissed, and the initial orders were varied to dismiss the proceeding with costs. The court further ordered that Patton pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders made by Pincus J. on 11 September 1985 be varied by substituting for those orders an order that the proceeding brought by Brian William Patton be dismissed generally, with costs including the costs of the motion dealt with by Pincus J., on the ground that no reasonable cause of action is disclosed.

Otherwise the appeal be dismissed.

The appellant pay the costs of the respondents of the appeal.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.