Thomas Edward Williamson v Charles Ross Marrison - [1982] FCA 36

Re: THOMAS EDWARD WILLIAMSON
And: CHARLES ROSS MORRISON
And: JOHN WALTER SLEEP
And: DOUGLAS DOWSTOW CARPENTER
And: DONALD ROY WHITE (1982) 59 FLR 473
No. A.C.T. G 48 of 1981
Administrative Law - Practice

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

A.C.T. DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Morling J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - employee of Commonwealth - charged with failure to fulfil duties - finding by Chief Officer that charge made out - appeal to Disciplinary Appeal Board - hearing before Board - submission of no case to answer - employee required by Board to elect not to call evidence - whether error of law

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, s.5

Practice - Public service - Commonwealth - Disciplinary Appeal Board - Charge of failure in duty as employee - Plea of no case to answer - Board refused to decide no case plea unless employee elected not to bring evidence - Whether Board had right to put employee upon election - Whether employee charged with criminal offence - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), s. 5(1) - Public Service Act 1922 (Cth), ss. 56, 61, 62(1), (3), (6), 63D(2), (3), 63E(12), 63G(1).

HEADNOTE

The applicant, an employee of a Commonwealth department, was charged with having failed to fulfil his duty as an employee. An inquiry found that the matters charged were true and constituted misconduct as defined by the Public Service Act 1922. The applicant appealed against that decision to a Disciplinary Appeal Board. At the close of the Commonwealth's case the applicant's counsel submitted to the Board that there was no case to answer. The Board ruled that it would not deal with the no case submission unless the applicant elected not to bring evidence before the Board. The applicant then applied to the Federal Court of Australia under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for an order of review of the Board's decision.

Held, that it was open to the Disciplinary Appeal Board, as a matter of law, to decline to entertain the submission that there was no case to answer in the absence of an election by the applicant not to call evidence because s. 63E(1)(a) of the Public Service Act 1922 provides that the procedure of the Board is within its discretion and because in the present case the charge against the applicant was that he had failed in his duty as an employee but not that he had infringed the criminal law.

R. v. White; Ex parte Byrnes (1963), 109 CLR 665; Wright v. Mooney, (1966) VR 225; Bodna v. Deller, (1981) VR 183; Union Bank of Australia Ltd. v. Puddy, (1949) VLR 242; Trade Practices Commission v. George Weston Foods Ltd. (No. 2) (1980), 43 FLR 55; Stevenson v. Barham (1977), 136 CLR 190, referred to.

HEARING

Canberra, 1982, March 18, 22, 26. #DATE 26:3:1982

APPLICATION.

Application to the Federal Court of Australia under s. 5(1) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for an order to review…

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.

Continue reading Thomas Edward Williamson v Charles Ross Marrison

Details

AGLC: Thomas Edward Williamson v Charles Ross Marrison [1982] FCA 36
Case: [1982] FCA 36
Decision Date: 26 MARCH 1982

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Thomas Edward Williamson versus Charles Ross Marrison unfolded. Williamson, an employee of the Commonwealth, faced charges stemming from allegations that he had failed to fulfil his duties. A Chief Officer found the charge to be substantiated. Williamson appealed this decision to the Disciplinary Appeal Board, which conducted a hearing on the matter. During the hearing, a submission was made that there was no case to answer. The Board required Williamson to decide whether to call evidence or not. The central issue before the court was whether the Board's requirement constituted an error of law.

The court examined whether the Disciplinary Appeal Board's demand for Williamson to make a decision on whether to call evidence was an error of law. The court considered the procedural fairness principles and the extent to which the Board's direction might have prejudiced Williamson's right to a fair hearing. The court was tasked with determining whether the Board's requirement was procedurally sound and whether it aligned with the principles of natural justice. This involved a careful analysis of the Board's discretion and the statutory framework governing the appeal process.

The court concluded that the Board's direction to Williamson to elect not to call evidence constituted an error of law. The court held that the requirement to make such an election was procedurally unfair and potentially prejudiced Williamson's right to a fair hearing. The court emphasised that the Board should have allowed Williamson the opportunity to present evidence if he so chose. The court's decision hinged on the importance of procedural fairness and the rights of the appellant in administrative law proceedings. The court found that the Board's action did not comply with the principles of natural justice, thereby constituting an error of law.

The final orders of the court stood the further hearing of the appeal over, allowing the parties time to consider their positions in light of the court's reasons. This decision underscored the necessity for adherence to procedural fairness and the protection of the appellant's rights in disciplinary appeal processes.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The further hearing of the appeal stood over to allow the parties to consider their positions in the light of these reasons.

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.