Rahman v Director-General of the Dept of Education and Training

Rahman and the Director-General of the Department of Education and Training were parties to proceedings before the High Court of Australia concerning the Director-General's decision to terminate Mr Rahman's employment. The dispute centred on whether the Director-General had acted unlawfully in terminating Mr Rahman's employment.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Director-General's decision to terminate Mr Rahman's employment was invalid on the grounds that it was made in bad faith or for an improper purpose. Specifically, the Court considered whether the Director-General's stated reasons for termination were a pretext for an ulterior motive, thereby vitiating the decision.

Gummow and Heydon JJ found that the evidence did not establish that the Director-General acted in bad faith or for an improper purpose. Their Honours applied the principle that a decision-maker must exercise their power for the purpose for which it was conferred. They concluded that the Director-General's reasons for termination, as articulated, were sufficient and not demonstrably a sham or pretence for an unlawful objective. The Court therefore held that the Director-General's decision was not invalid on the grounds alleged.