Edwards v Justice Giudice [1999] FCA 1836

Edwards v Justice Giudice [1999] FCA 1836

The application was dismissed by majority (Moore and Marshall JJ), holding that the Commission was obliged to make express findings on disputed questions of fact (alleged misconduct) as required by s 170CG(3)(a) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) and to give adequate reasons. The Full Bench had not erred in quashing the Commissioner's decision for failure to do so. Although the issue of apprehended bias was raised, it was unnecessary to decide it as the appeal would have been allowed on the failure-to-make-findings ground. Finkelstein J dissented, holding that the Full Bench itself fell into error on both the merits and bias questions and that the appropriate course was to issue...

Parties
Applicant/appellant/prosecutor: Tannya Edwards; First Respondent: Justice Giudice, President, Senior Deputy President Polites and Commissioner Cribb of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission; Second Respondent: Telstra Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Prerogative Writs (mandamus and Certiorari), Appeal From Australian Industrial Relations Commission Full Bench Decision / Judgment Following Hearing of Application for Orders Nisi for Writs of Mandamus and Certiorari
Outcome
Application dismissed (majority: Moore and Marshall JJ; Finkelstein J dissenting)
Legal Topics
Certiorari, Mandamus, Bias in Tribunals, Jurisdictional Error, Obligation to Give Reasons, Industrial Relations – Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Apprehended Bias
Administrative Law Industrial Law Certiorari Mandamus Bias in Tribunals Jurisdictional Error Obligation to Give Reasons Industrial Relations – Unfair Dismissal +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 34 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tannya Edwards

Applicant/appellant/prosecutor

Justice Giudice, President, Senior Deputy President Polites and Commissioner Cribb of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission

First Respondent

Telstra Corporation Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Prerogative Writs (mandamus and Certiorari), Appeal From Australian Industrial Relations Commission Full Bench Decision / Judgment Following Hearing of Application for Orders Nisi for Writs of Mandamus and Certiorari

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission erred in quashing the Commissioner's decision to reinstate the applicant for failure to make findings of fact and for apprehended bias
  2. 2 Whether the Commission was obliged to make findings of fact on disputed misconduct allegations
  3. 3 Whether the obligation to give reasons for administrative decisions was breached

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed by majority (Moore and Marshall JJ), holding that the Commission was obliged to make express findings on disputed questions of fact (alleged misconduct) as required by s 170CG(3)(a) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) and to give adequate reasons. The Full Bench had not erred in quashing the Commissioner's decision for failure to do so. Although the issue of apprehended bias was raised, it was unnecessary to decide it as the appeal would have been allowed on the failure-to-make-findings ground. Finkelstein J dissented, holding that the Full Bench itself fell into error on both the merits and bias questions and that the appropriate course was to issue...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed (majority: Moore and Marshall JJ; Finkelstein J dissenting)

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The second respondent file and serve written submissions on the question of costs within 14 days of the date of this order.