Taylor v Minister for Education - [2021] VSC 23

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2020 03014

JULIAN TAYLOR	Plaintiff
v
MINISTER FOR EDUCATION	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Richards J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 December 2020 Further written submissions received from the defendant on 18 December 2020, and from the plaintiff on 28 December 2020, 4 January 2021, and 10 January 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 February 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Taylor v Minister for Education
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 23

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Plaintiff alleging misconduct by a registered teacher and by an employee of the Victorian Institute of Teaching – Plaintiff seeking orders in the nature of mandamus to compel defendant Minister to investigate alleged misconduct – Application by Minister for summary dismissal of proceeding – Whether Minister has any power or duty to investigate or to direct an investigation – Whether Minister’s responsibility to Parliament enforceable in judicial review proceeding – No real prospect that plaintiff will obtain orders sought – Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), ss 62, 63 – Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (Vic), Pt 2.6 – Public Administration Act 2004 (Vic), s 85.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the Defendant	Ms F Batten	Matthew Hocking, Victorian Government Solicitor

HER HONOUR:

In November 2005, Julian Taylor applied to the Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT) for registration as a teacher. His application was provisionally granted early the following year and he maintained his registration until 2015. He was first registered under the Victorian Institute of Teaching Act 2001 (Vic) (VIT Act) and then, from July 2007, under Part 2.6 of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (Vic) (Education Act). As a registered teacher, Mr Taylor was permitted to teach in Victorian schools, and he was employed as a teacher at a number of schools in Victoria while registered.

In June 2015, the principal of a school at which Mr Taylor had been teaching notified the VIT of concerns about his identity. Following an investigation, the VIT referred to a formal hearing allegations that Mr Taylor had fraudulently and by false representation obtained registration to teach, by completing his applications in a false name, failing to disclose his previous names, failing to disclose findings of guilt and convictions, and providing a false identity document in support of his application. In August 2015, a hearing panel of the VIT found that Mr Taylor had obtained his registration by misrepresentation, and determined to cancel his registration from 31 August 2015.

Mr Taylor was also charged with a number of criminal offences related to his registration and work as a teacher. In August 2018, he was found guilty of four charges of using a false document, one charge of perjury, seven charges of obtaining a financial advantage by deception, and one charge of making, using or supplying identification information. He was sentenced to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Taylor v Minister for Education and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] VSC 23
Decision Date: 1 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Taylor v Minister for Education, the plaintiff sought to compel the Minister for Education to investigate alleged misconduct by a registered teacher and an employee of the Victorian Institute of Teaching. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria and the plaintiff requested orders in the nature of mandamus. The defendant, the Minister for Education, applied for summary dismissal of the proceeding on the basis that there was no real prospect that the plaintiff would obtain the orders sought. The primary issue for the court was whether the Minister had any power or duty to investigate or direct an investigation into the alleged misconduct and whether the Minister’s responsibility to Parliament was enforceable in a judicial review proceeding. The court also needed to determine if there was a real prospect that the plaintiff would obtain the orders sought.

The court held that the Minister for Education did not have any power or duty to investigate the alleged misconduct or direct an investigation. The court further found that the Minister’s responsibility to Parliament was not enforceable in a judicial review proceeding as it was a political matter. The court also determined that there was no real prospect that the plaintiff would obtain the orders sought as the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (Vic) provided an alternative and effective means of addressing the plaintiff’s concerns. The court held that the plaintiff’s application was an abuse of process and dismissed the proceeding.

The court did not make any orders as the plaintiff’s application was dismissed. The court held that the plaintiff’s application was an abuse of process and that there was no real prospect that the plaintiff would obtain the orders sought. The court also held that the Minister for Education did not have any power or duty to investigate or direct an investigation into the alleged misconduct.

Orders