The State of South Australia In Right Of The Department For Education And Child Development v Dolan

The State of South Australia In Right Of The Department For Education And Child Development (the appellant) appealed against decisions of the Full Bench and the trial Judge concerning a workers' compensation claim brought by Ms Dolan (the respondent). The dispute arose from allegations of unsatisfactory conduct and behaviour made against the respondent by her employer, the Department, which the respondent contended constituted a work injury. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the reasons provided by the trial Judge and the Full Bench were adequate, and whether the appellant had been denied procedural fairness. Specifically, the Court considered whether the conclusion that certain actions taken by the Department were unreasonable could be supported without making inferences on matters that were not explicitly addressed in the evidence or findings. The Court also examined whether the issue of procedural fairness, raised for the first time on appeal, could be entertained.

The Court, comprising Kourakis CJ, Doyle and Livesey JJ, held that the reasons provided by the lower courts were inadequate. They found that a number of intermediate facts had not been the subject of findings, and that the conclusion regarding the unreasonableness of formal letters and the proposed involvement of a Department officer could not be supported without making inferences on matters that were neither obvious nor contentious. Livesey J, with whom Doyle J agreed, further noted that the use of formal letters and the proposed involvement of a Department officer were not addressed in the evidence, and that the appellant was deprived of the possibility of a successful outcome due to a failure to afford procedural fairness. The Court determined that the question of procedural fairness gives rise to a question of law, and that while this Court has the power to entertain such points in exceptional circumstances, allowing the appellant to raise it for the first time would cause no injustice to the respondent.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the decisions of the Full Bench and the trial Judge be set aside. The matter was remitted for retrial before a different judge.