Railways, Commissioner for (NSW) v Locke [1970] HCA 20

Railways, Commissioner for (NSW) v Locke [1970] HCA 20

The Appeals Board was a statutory tribunal subject to prohibition because it was required to act judicially and determine rights and liabilities. Leskovec had no appeal under s. 82 because a reprimand and notation on official history were not among the statutory punishments of dismissal, suspension, fine, or reduction in rank, position, grade or pay. Section 83 (2) did not permit the officer charged to bring the matter before the Board. The Board therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the purported appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Special Leave Concerning Prohibition Against a Statutory Appeals Board / High Court Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['prerogative Writ of Prohibition' 'certiorari' 'jurisdiction of Statutory Tribunal' 'natural Justice' 'railway Officer Discipline' 'statutory Appeal Rights']
['administrative Law' 'employment Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['prerogative Writ of Prohibition' 'certiorari' 'jurisdiction of Statutory Tribunal' 'natural Justice' 'railway Officer Discipline' 'statutory Appeal Rights']

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

Appeal by Special Leave Concerning Prohibition Against a Statutory Appeals Board / High Court Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Appeals Board constituted under the Government Railways Act, 1912-1969 N.S.W. was a body to which prohibition would lie for excess of jurisdiction.' 'Whether Frank Leskovec had a right of appeal to the Appeals Board under s. 82 after receiving a reprimand and a notation on his official history, without dismissal, suspension, fine, or reduction in rank, position, grade or pay.' 'Whether s. 83 (2) empowered the Appeals Board to investigate and deal with the matter at the instance of the officer against whom the charge was made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeals Board was a statutory tribunal subject to prohibition because it was required to act judicially and determine rights and liabilities. Leskovec had no appeal under s. 82 because a reprimand and notation on official history were not among the statutory punishments of dismissal, suspension, fine, or reduction in rank, position, grade or pay. Section 83 (2) did not permit the officer charged to bring the matter before the Board. The Board therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the purported appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ["Appellant to pay respondents' costs of this appeal pursuant to the condition of the grant of special leave to appeal." 'Order of the Supreme Court set aside.' 'In lieu thereof order that the rule nisi for prohibition made on 23rd July 1969 be made absolute with costs.']