Bayley, Beryl Joyce v Osborne John & Ors [1984] FCA 460

Bayley, Beryl Joyce v Osborne John & Ors [1984] FCA 460

The direction to work standard hours was not a decision made under an enactment but an exercise of the employer's contractual power, which was neither excluded by statute nor regulations. Accordingly, no jurisdiction under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) existed to review the decision, and the application must be dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Beryl Joyce Bayley; First Respondent, Chief Officer, Australian Taxation Office: John Osborne; Second Respondent, Commissioner of Taxation, Australian Taxation Office: William O'Reilly; Third Respondent, Commissioner, Commonwealth Public Service Board: Peter Wilenski; Third Respondent, Commissioner, Commonwealth Public Service Board: Robert J. Young; Third Respondent, Commissioner, Commonwealth Public Service Board: John Vincent Monaghan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 1984
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Public Service Employment, Employment Conditions, Statutory Interpretation, Lawful Directions
Administrative Law Employment Law Public Law Judicial Review Public Service Employment Employment Conditions Statutory Interpretation Lawful Directions

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beryl Joyce Bayley

Applicant

John Osborne

First Respondent, Chief Officer, Australian Taxation Office

William O'Reilly

Second Respondent, Commissioner of Taxation, Australian Taxation Office

Peter Wilenski

Third Respondent, Commissioner, Commonwealth Public Service Board

Robert J. Young

Third Respondent, Commissioner, Commonwealth Public Service Board

John Vincent Monaghan

Third Respondent, Commissioner, Commonwealth Public Service Board

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a direction to work standard hours was a decision made under an enactment and reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the direction was a valid exercise of employer power under the contract of service or was disciplinary action requiring statutory procedure
  3. 3 Whether the scheme or regulations governing hours of duty exclude the common law right to direct hours of work

Ratio Decidendi

The direction to work standard hours was not a decision made under an enactment but an exercise of the employer's contractual power, which was neither excluded by statute nor regulations. Accordingly, no jurisdiction under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) existed to review the decision, and the application must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant shall pay the respondents' costs to be agreed or taxed.