Diss, D.M. v. Telecom Australia Promotions Appeal Board [1985] FCA 163

Diss, D.M. v. Telecom Australia Promotions Appeal Board [1985] FCA 163

The applicant failed to establish any ground for judicial review: the Board was not required by natural justice to allow cross-examination or provide a verbatim transcript, the applicant had opportunities to inspect reports, alleged selection-process irregularities were irrelevant to the Board's statutory task and not proved, s.49 did not apply, and allegations of no evidence, unlawfulness and fraud were unsupported.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 April 1985
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S.5 of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 1984 for Review of a Promotions Appeal Board Decision / Application for Review Determined
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'natural Justice' 'promotions Appeal' 'telecommunications Employment' 'procedural Fairness' 'error of Law']
['administrative Law'] ['judicial Review' 'natural Justice' 'promotions Appeal' 'telecommunications Employment' 'procedural Fairness' 'error of Law']

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 Pursuant to S.5 of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 1984 for Review of a Promotions Appeal Board Decision / Application for Review Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with the Board's decision." 'Whether the Board failed to observe procedures required by the Telecommunications Act, including making full enquiries under s.51(4).' "Whether alleged irregularities in the selection procedures were relevant to the Board's function on the promotions appeal." 'Whether the Board made errors of law, including in relation to s.49 of the Telecommunications Act.' 'Whether there was no evidence or other material to justify the decision.' 'Whether the decision was otherwise contrary to law or induced or affected by fraud.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish any ground for judicial review: the Board was not required by natural justice to allow cross-examination or provide a verbatim transcript, the applicant had opportunities to inspect reports, alleged selection-process irregularities were irrelevant to the Board's statutory task and not proved, s.49 did not apply, and allegations of no evidence, unlawfulness and fraud were unsupported.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for review be dismissed.']