McNab, D. v. Gildea, M.R. & Ors [1986] FCA 610

McNab, D. v. Gildea, M.R. & Ors [1986] FCA 610

The Board failed to make a 'full inquiry' as required under s.51(4) of the Telecommunications Act and denied the applicant natural justice by not contacting Mr Caddy, the applicant's long-term supervisor and nominated referee, nor informing the applicant so he could take appropriate action. This failure constituted grounds to set aside the Board's decision.

Parties
Applicant: David Donald McNab; First Respondent: Mervyn Royce Gildea; Second Respondent: Ronald Bewsell; Third Respondent: Tod Mergis; Fourth Respondent: Australian Telecommunications Commission; Fifth Respondent: Colin Graham Williams
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 1986
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Application allowed. Decision of Promotions Appeal Board set aside. Appeals remitted to differently constituted Board. Costs awarded to applicant and fifth respondent. Stay granted pending appeal or order.
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Procedures of Promotion Appeals Boards, Judicial Review, Failure to Consult Nominated Referee
Administrative Law Natural Justice Procedures of Promotion Appeals Boards Judicial Review Failure to Consult Nominated Referee

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Donald McNab

Applicant

Mervyn Royce Gildea

First Respondent

Ronald Bewsell

Second Respondent

Tod Mergis

Third Respondent

Australian Telecommunications Commission

Fourth Respondent

Colin Graham Williams

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure by Promotions Appeal Board to consult applicant's nominated referee (Mr John Caddy) was a denial of natural justice
  2. 2 Whether Board took into account irrelevant considerations

Ratio Decidendi

The Board failed to make a 'full inquiry' as required under s.51(4) of the Telecommunications Act and denied the applicant natural justice by not contacting Mr Caddy, the applicant's long-term supervisor and nominated referee, nor informing the applicant so he could take appropriate action. This failure constituted grounds to set aside the Board's decision.

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Decision of Promotions Appeal Board set aside. Appeals remitted to differently constituted Board. Costs awarded to applicant and fifth respondent. Stay granted pending appeal or order.

Orders

  • The decision made by the Promotion Appeals Board constituted by the first three respondents in respect of the appeals against the applicant's provisional appointment be set aside.
  • The appeals be remitted to the Promotions Appeal Board differently constituted for resolution.