Hill v Green; Jarvis v Buckley; Wood v Buckley; Young v Buckley [1999] NSWCA 477

Hill v Green; Jarvis v Buckley; Wood v Buckley; Young v Buckley [1999] NSWCA 477

A discretion vested in a disciplinary authority to choose between written explanation and oral inquiry must be exercised in accordance with the requirements of procedural fairness; the regulations do not constitute an exhaustive code abrogating common law fairness absent express words; where credibility is in issue or allegations are serious, fairness may require some form of oral hearing or inquiry. A right of appeal may influence the grant of relief for denial of fairness but does not generally exclude the underlying requirement at first instance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Applications for Leave to Appeal And, Where Granted, Appeals Themselves
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted and appeals allowed for Hill and Wood; orders made in their favour. Leave to appeal refused for Young and Jarvis. Orders for costs as specified.
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'disciplinary Proceedings' 'statutory Interpretation' 'teachers’ Discipline' 'judicial Review' 'appeals']
['administrative Law' 'employment Law'] ['procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'disciplinary Proceedings' 'statutory Interpretation' 'teachers’ Discipline' 'judicial Review' 'appeals']

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 / Judgment on Applications for Leave to Appeal And, Where Granted, Appeals Themselves

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Does the disciplinary procedure established by the Teaching Services Act 1980 and Regulations abrogate the rules of procedural fairness/natural justice?' "Can a disciplinary authority deny a hearing/inquiry and proceed solely on written explanations ('paper trial')?" "Is an individual's right of appeal sufficient to remedy procedural unfairness at first instance?" 'Does an administrative decision based on perverse or illogical fact finding amount to an error of law warranting review?']

Ratio Decidendi

A discretion vested in a disciplinary authority to choose between written explanation and oral inquiry must be exercised in accordance with the requirements of procedural fairness; the regulations do not constitute an exhaustive code abrogating common law fairness absent express words; where credibility is in issue or allegations are serious, fairness may require some form of oral hearing or inquiry. A right of appeal may influence the grant of relief for denial of fairness but does not generally exclude the underlying requirement at first instance.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted and appeals allowed for Hill and Wood; orders made in their favour. Leave to appeal refused for Young and Jarvis. Orders for costs as specified.

Orders

  • ['Hill and Wood: leave to appeal granted, appeals allowed, and orders claimed by each made, with costs.' 'Young and Jarvis: leave to appeal refused, with costs.']