Rose, Andrew David & Anor v A E (Tony) Bridges 1997 FCA 1279

Rose, Andrew David & Anor v A E (Tony) Bridges 1997 FCA 1279

The application failed because the inquiry officer's 19 February 1997 letter did not create a legitimate expectation that cross-examination would be allowed, and any such expectation was dispelled by later communications. Further, under the statutory disciplinary scheme, an inquiry officer conducting a Public Service Act, 1922 (Cth) s 62 inquiry had no power to compel witnesses to give oral evidence or submit to cross-examination, unlike a Disciplinary Appeal Committee under the Merit Protection scheme. Procedural fairness therefore could not require the inquiry officer to allow cross-examination. In any event, the procedures proposed, including disclosure of material, opportunities for...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 1997
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) for an Order of Review of Proposed Conduct by an Inquiry Officer Appointed Under the Public Service Act, 1922 (cth) / Final Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['natural Justice' 'procedural Fairness' 'cross Examination of Witnesses' 'legitimate Expectation' 'public Service Misconduct Inquiry' 'adjr Review']
['administrative Law' 'public Service Disciplinary Law'] ['natural Justice' 'procedural Fairness' 'cross Examination of Witnesses' 'legitimate Expectation' 'public Service Misconduct Inquiry' 'adjr Review']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) for an Order of Review of Proposed Conduct by an Inquiry Officer Appointed Under the Public Service Act, 1922 (cth) / Final Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the inquiry officer's refusal to allow cross-examination of witnesses was likely to breach the rules of natural justice under Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 6(i)(a)." 'Whether the disciplinary scheme under the Public Service Act, 1922 (Cth) and the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984 (Cth) excluded any procedural fairness requirement that cross-examination be allowed at a s 62 inquiry.' "Whether the inquiry officer's letter of 19 February 1997 created a legitimate expectation that cross-examination would be allowed, or that the decision whether to allow it would be made only at the hearing." 'Whether the procedures proposed by the inquiry officer were unfair in the circumstances absent cross-examination.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the inquiry officer's 19 February 1997 letter did not create a legitimate expectation that cross-examination would be allowed, and any such expectation was dispelled by later communications. Further, under the statutory disciplinary scheme, an inquiry officer conducting a Public Service Act, 1922 (Cth) s 62 inquiry had no power to compel witnesses to give oral evidence or submit to cross-examination, unlike a Disciplinary Appeal Committee under the Merit Protection scheme. Procedural fairness therefore could not require the inquiry officer to allow cross-examination. In any event, the procedures proposed, including disclosure of material, opportunities for...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The Applicants to pay the Respondent's costs."]