RE RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD; EX PARTE THE WESTERN AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS COMMISSION [1999] WASCA 63
| (1999) 21 WAR 1 | |||
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 63 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CIV:2169/1998 | 11 MARCH 1999 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ PIDGEON J WALLWORK J | 18/06/99 | |
| 35 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Order nisi for writ of certiorari discharged | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE WESTERN AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS COMMISSION RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD MICHAEL CHANCE |
Catchwords: | Administrative law Prerogative writs and orders Certiorari Dismissal for misconduct Whether dismissal of employee void Employment relationship subject to statutory regime Whether employer entitled to dismiss permanent employee for misconduct without following disciplinary procedures Whether Railway Appeal Board had jurisdiction to hear appeal Contract of employment silent but provisions contained in award Application of award provisions Denial of natural justice Failure to follow prescribed procedures Dismissal unlawful and void Byrne v Australian Airlines (1995) 185 CLR 410 distinguished Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 applied |
Legislation: | Government Railways Act 1904, s 73, s 77, s 82, s 83 Industrial Relations Act 1979, s 23(3)(d) |
Case References: | Automatic Fire Sprinklers Pty Ltd v Watson (1946) 72 CLR 435 Balmain Association Inc v Planning Administrator for the Leichhardt Council (1991) 25 NSWLR 615 BHP v SUA (1975) AILR par 255 Blyth Chemicals v Bushnell (1933) 49 CLR 66 Bostik (Australia) Pty Ltd v Gorgevski (1992) 41 IR 452 BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266 Bridges v Commonwealth (1907) 4 CLR 1195 Byrne v Australian Airlines (1995) 185 CLR 410 Calvin v Carr [1979] 1 NSWLR 1 Calvin v Carr [1980] AC 574 Clouston & Co v Corry [1906] AC 122 Drury v BHP Refractories Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 467 Farley v Lums (1917) 19 WALR 117 FLAIEU (NSW) v Ettalong Beach War Memorial Club Ltd (1977) AILR par 259 Gratton v Cessnock Council (1964) 81 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 346 Gunton v Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council [1981] 1 Ch 448 Hall v New South Wales Trotting Club Ltd [1977] 1 NSWLR 378 Hercules v Brennan (1983) 25 AILR 100 Hill v CA Parsons & Co Ltd [1972] Ch 305 Howes v Gosford Shire Council (1961) 78 WN (NSW) 981 John Lysaght (Australia) Pty Ltd v Federated Ironworkers Association (1973) 15 AILR par 323 Jupiter General Insurance Co Ltd v Andeshire Bomanji Shroff [1937] 3 All ER 67 King v University of Saskatchewan (1969) 6 DLR (3d) 120 Lane v Reverend Father Nazario Fasciale (1991) 5 VIR 33 Laws v London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers) Ltd [1959] 2 All ER 285 Lucy v The Commonwealth (1923) 33 CLR 229 Malone v Marr [1981] 2 NSWLR 894 Murray v Greyhound Racing Board of Queensland [1979] Qd R 111 North v Television Corp Ltd (1976) 11 ALR 599 Pemberton v A-G (Tas) [1978] Tas SR 1 Pepper v Webb [1969] 1 WLR 514 Pillai v Singapore City Council [1968] 1 WLR 1278 Pomykala… |
Continue reading Re Railway Appeal Board
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Re Railway Appeal Board [1999] WASCA 63
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 63
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case was between the Railway Appeal Board and an employee who was dismissed for misconduct. The dispute reached the court which had to determine the legality of the dismissal process. The central legal issues were whether the dismissal of the employee was void, and if the employer was entitled to dismiss a permanent employee for misconduct without following the statutory disciplinary procedures. Additionally, the court needed to decide if the Railway Appeal Board had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
The court's reasoning began by examining the nature of the employment relationship and whether it was governed by the statutory regime. It considered whether the employer could dismiss a permanent employee for misconduct without following prescribed disciplinary procedures. The court distinguished the case from Byrne v Australian Airlines, where the dismissal was upheld despite procedural irregularities. Instead, the court applied the principles from Ridge v Baldwin, which held that natural justice must be observed before dismissing a public servant. The court found that the dismissal was unlawful and void due to the failure to follow prescribed procedures and the denial of natural justice. Consequently, the order nisi for the writ of certiorari was discharged.
The court's reasoning began by examining the nature of the employment relationship and whether it was governed by the statutory regime. It considered whether the employer could dismiss a permanent employee for misconduct without following prescribed disciplinary procedures. The court distinguished the case from Byrne v Australian Airlines, where the dismissal was upheld despite procedural irregularities. Instead, the court applied the principles from Ridge v Baldwin, which held that natural justice must be observed before dismissing a public servant. The court found that the dismissal was unlawful and void due to the failure to follow prescribed procedures and the denial of natural justice. Consequently, the order nisi for the writ of certiorari was discharged.
Orders
Orders of the court
Order nisi for writ of certiorari discharged
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.