Tang v Griffith University

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Tang v Griffith University [2003] QCA 571

PARTIES:

VIVIAN TANG
(applicant/respondent)
v
GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY
(respondent/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 2308 of 2003
SC No 10477 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal from interlocutory decision

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 September 2003

JUDGES:

Jerrard JA and Dutney and Philippides JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – COMMONWEALTH, QUEENSLAND AND AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY – “DECISION” WITHIN ACT’S APPLICATION – “UNDER AN ENACTMENT” – where respondent excluded from her PhD candidature program by the appellant university – where respondent applied for statutory review of this decision – where appellant contends that the decision not to confer a degree was not made “under an enactment” and therefore is not subject to judicial review – whether power of the appellant to confer degrees is a power authorised or permitted by statute – whether this power derives its legal efficacy from statute

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
Australian National University Act 1946 (Cth), s 23
Griffith University Act 1998 (Qld), s 6, s 9, s 11, s 61
Higher Education (General Provisions) Act 1993 (Qld)
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 4

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321, followed
Australian National University v Burns (1982) 43 ALR 25, considered
Australian National University v Lewins (1996) 138 ALR 1, considered
Blizzard v O’Sullivan [1994] 1 Qd R 112, applied
CEA Technologies Pty Ltdv Civil Aviation Authority (1994) 51 FCR 329, discussed
Concord Data Solutions Pty Ltd v Director General of Education [1994] 1 Qd R 343, referred to
General Newspapers Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited (1993) 45 FCR 164, discussed
Hutchins v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1996) 65 FCR 269, considered
Lamb v Moss (1983) 49 ALR 533, followed
Neat Domestic Trading Pty Ltd v AWB Ltd (2002) 198 ALR 179, discussed
Orr v Bond University (Unreported, QSC, Dowsett J, SC No 2337 of 1996, 3 April 1996), discussed
Whitehead v Griffith University [2003] 1 Qd R, discussed

COUNSEL:

J McKenna, with S M Cool, for the appellant
A J Morris QC, with J Murphy, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Minter Ellison for the appellant
Dibbs Barker Gosling for the respondent

1. JERRARD JA: In this matter Griffith University appeals a judgment of this court delivered 14 February 2003 which held that a decision to exclude Ms Vivian Tang from a PhD candidature program, on the grounds that she had undertaken research without regard to ethical and scientific standards, was an administrative decision made under an enactment[1] (the Griffith University Act 1998 (Qld)), and subject to judicial review. Ms Tang had filed an application for a statutory order of review…