Chapman, E.M. v Reilly, J.D. & Anor [1986] FCA 270

Chapman, E.M. v Reilly, J.D. & Anor [1986] FCA 270

Although the appellant's circumstances were sufficiently special to give rise to a legitimate expectation that appointment would not be refused without an opportunity to answer adverse matters, the appellant was not denied procedural fairness. The first respondent's decision was based essentially on the appellant's own account of his role in the De Smet matter, which was discussed at the interview, and the appellant had the opportunity to deal with the critical consideration. The decision was not shown to be unreasonable, based on irrelevant considerations, or made by omitting relevant considerations under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 July 1986
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia Dismissing an Application Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'legitimate Expectation' 'australian Federal Police Appointment' 'withdrawal of Offer of Appointment' 'unreasonableness' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations']
['administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'legitimate Expectation' 'australian Federal Police Appointment' 'withdrawal of Offer of Appointment' 'unreasonableness' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations']

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

Administrative Law Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia Dismissing an Application Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant had a legitimate expectation of appointment to the Australian Federal Police after being told his application had been accepted and after resigning from the New South Wales Police Force.' 'Whether the respondents owed the appellant a duty to accord procedural fairness before withdrawing the offer of appointment.' 'Whether the considerations leading to the withdrawal decision were sufficiently put to the appellant.' 'Whether the decision to withdraw the offer of appointment was one that no reasonable person could have made or was affected by irrelevant considerations or failure to consider relevant considerations.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the appellant's circumstances were sufficiently special to give rise to a legitimate expectation that appointment would not be refused without an opportunity to answer adverse matters, the appellant was not denied procedural fairness. The first respondent's decision was based essentially on the appellant's own account of his role in the De Smet matter, which was discussed at the interview, and the appellant had the opportunity to deal with the critical consideration. The decision was not shown to be unreasonable, based on irrelevant considerations, or made by omitting relevant considerations under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal."]