Forbes v Boston [1999] NSWSC 1217

Forbes v Boston [1999] NSWSC 1217

Plaintiff was denied procedural fairness as evidence forming the basis of the decision was not provided, review processes did not restore fairness, and procedural fairness is required due to the effect on the plaintiff’s employment rights and interests; therefore, decision to place plaintiff’s name on the Not To Be Employed List should be set aside and name removed.

Parties
Plaintiff: Ian Forbes; First Defendant: Kenneth Boston, Director-General of the New South Wales Department of Education and Training; Second Defendant: Heather Gray, Director of Personnel Operations, New South Wales Department of Education and Training
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review and Damages / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Plaintiff’s claims for damages dismissed; defendants breached procedural fairness; name of plaintiff to be removed from Not to be Employed List; right to conduct new inquiry preserved
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Misfeasance in Public Office, Negligence in Decision Making, Vicarious Liability
Administrative Law Torts Procedural Fairness Misfeasance in Public Office Negligence in Decision Making Vicarious Liability

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Forbes

Plaintiff

Kenneth Boston, Director-General of the New South Wales Department of Education and Training

First Defendant

Heather Gray, Director of Personnel Operations, New South Wales Department of Education and Training

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review and Damages / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether procedural fairness was afforded to Mr Forbes in placing his name on the Not To Be Employed List
  2. 2 Whether maintaining the Not To Be Employed List was within statutory power
  3. 3 Whether the defendants were liable for misfeasance in public office

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff was denied procedural fairness as evidence forming the basis of the decision was not provided, review processes did not restore fairness, and procedural fairness is required due to the effect on the plaintiff’s employment rights and interests; therefore, decision to place plaintiff’s name on the Not To Be Employed List should be set aside and name removed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff’s claims for damages dismissed; defendants breached procedural fairness; name of plaintiff to be removed from Not to be Employed List; right to conduct new inquiry preserved

Orders

  • Declare that the defendants acted in breach of procedural fairness in placing the plaintiff's name on the Not to be Employed List.
  • Order that the name of the plaintiff be removed from that list and not be placed upon it without proper determination.