Whitehead v Griffith University - [2002] QSC 153

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Whitehead v Griffith University [2002] QSC 153

PARTIES:

DOUGLAS WHITEHEAD
(Applicant)
v
GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY
(Respondent)

FILE NO:

2059 of 2002

DIVISION:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 May 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 May 2002

JUDGE:

Chesterman J

ORDER:

1. That the application for review filed 24 April 2002 be dismissed

2. That the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – Where applicant sought review of decision made under private contract of employment – whether court had jurisdiction to review decision

Griffith University Act 1998, s 4, s 6, and s 32
Judicial Review Act 1991, s 13, s 41, s 43 and s 48
Police Service Administration Act 1990
Workplace Relations Act 1996, s 170LT and s 170M

Blizzard v O’Sullivan [1994] 1 Qd R 112, (followed)
McCasker v Queensland Corrective Services Commission [1998] 2 Qd R 261, (distinguished)
R v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Lavelle [1983] 1 WLR 23, (followed)
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Lain [1967] 1 QB 864, (applied)
R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin Plc [1987] 1 QB 815, (cited)

COUNSEL:

Mr A. Boe for the applicant
Mr T.J. Bradley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Boe Callaghan Lawyers for the applicant
Minter Ellison Lawyers for the respondent

CHESTERMAN J: The applicant is employed by the respondent Griffith University as a senior lecturer in the School of Computing and Information Technology. On 26 March 2001 the Head of the school handed him a letter which set out a number of complaints about his occupational performance. The most serious of these was that he had revised the mark given to one of his students following an examination in the subject of eCommerce. The student had initially been awarded a credit but the grade was increased to a distinction. The complaint was that the alteration occurred after the student had asked to be given the higher mark to improve his chances of retaining financial sponsorship from the Thai Government which was assisting him to study at the university.

The applicant was employed under the terms of the Griffith University – Academic Staff Certified Agreement 2000-2003 (“the agreement”) made between the respondent and the National Tertiary Education Union. It was certified in accordance with s 170LT of the (Commonwealth) Workplace Relations Act 1996 by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) on 21 August 2000. The agreement is, by s 170M, binding on applicant and respondent. Clause 35 of the agreement sets out “Procedures for Misconduct or Serious Misconduct.” Clause 35.2 provides:

“If the Vice Chancellor considers an allegation of misconduct . . . warrants further investigation, the Vice Chancellor will notify the employee in writing and in sufficient detail to enable the employee to understand the nature of the allegations and to . . . respond .…

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 Whitehead v Griffith University

Details

AGLC: Whitehead v Griffith University [2002] QSC 153
Case: [2002] QSC 153
Decision Date: 30 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Dr. Whitehead, sought judicial review of a decision made under a private contract of employment by Griffith University. The dispute arose from the university's decision to terminate Dr. Whitehead's employment. The case was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court, which was tasked with determining whether it had jurisdiction to review the decision made under the private contract.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether it had the jurisdiction to review the decision made under a private contract of employment. Dr. Whitehead argued that the university's decision to terminate his employment was unlawful, and therefore, the court should intervene. Griffith University contended that the contract of employment was a private agreement, and therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the decision.

The court held that it did not have the jurisdiction to review the decision made under a private contract of employment. The court found that the contract between the applicant and the university was a private agreement, and therefore, the decision to terminate the employment was not subject to judicial review. The court further held that the applicant had not identified any statutory or common law grounds that would provide the court with jurisdiction to review the decision. The court dismissed the application for review and ordered that Dr. Whitehead pay the university's costs of and incidental to the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the application for review filed 24 April 2002 be dismissed

2. That the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis

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.

CITATION:	Whitehead v Griffith University [2002] QSC 153
PARTIES:	DOUGLAS WHITEHEAD (Applicant) v GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY (Respondent)
FILE NO:	2059 of 2002
DIVISION:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	30 May 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 May 2002
JUDGE:	Chesterman J
ORDER:	1. That the application for review filed 24 April 2002 be dismissed 2. That the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – Where applicant sought review of decision made under private contract of employment – whether court had jurisdiction to review decision Griffith University Act 1998, s 4, s 6, and s 32 Judicial Review Act 1991, s 13, s 41, s 43 and s 48 Police Service Administration Act 1990 Workplace Relations Act 1996, s 170LT and s 170M Blizzard v O’Sullivan [1994] 1 Qd R 112, (followed) McCasker v Queensland Corrective Services Commission [1998] 2 Qd R 261, (distinguished) R v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Lavelle [1983] 1 WLR 23, (followed) R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Lain [1967] 1 QB 864, (applied) R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin Plc [1987] 1 QB 815, (cited)
COUNSEL:	Mr A. Boe for the applicant Mr T.J. Bradley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Boe Callaghan Lawyers for the applicant Minter Ellison Lawyers for the respondent