Wavell-Smith, B. v Mussared, P. & Ors [1987] FCA 367

Wavell-Smith, B. v Mussared, P. & Ors [1987] FCA 367

The process outlined for the Redeployment and Retirement Review Committee does not breach the requirements of natural justice as affirmed in Ansell v. Wells. The applicant has not demonstrated a sufficient legal right to adversarial procedures, legal representation, or cross-examination in this context, and the application for interlocutory relief is refused.

Parties
Applicant: Brian Wavell-Smith; First Respondent: P. Mussared; Second Respondent: J. Roache; Third Respondent: K. Conway
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 July 1987
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory (application for Interlocutory Relief, Decision on Interim Injunction)
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief dismissed
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Procedural Fairness, Employment Law, Administrative Procedures, ASIO Redeployment and Redundancy
Administrative Law Natural Justice Procedural Fairness Employment Law Administrative Procedures ASIO Redeployment and Redundancy

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Wavell-Smith

Applicant

P. Mussared

First Respondent

J. Roache

Second Respondent

K. Conway

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory (application for Interlocutory Relief, Decision on Interim Injunction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an adversarial hearing (including rights to legal representation, cross-examination, and disclosure) before the Review Committee considering redeployment under ASIO procedures
  2. 2 Whether the procedure of the Review Committee complies with the rules of natural justice

Ratio Decidendi

The process outlined for the Redeployment and Retirement Review Committee does not breach the requirements of natural justice as affirmed in Ansell v. Wells. The applicant has not demonstrated a sufficient legal right to adversarial procedures, legal representation, or cross-examination in this context, and the application for interlocutory relief is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief dismissed

Orders

  • The application for interlocutory relief made 6 July 1987 be dismissed.