Bound, Ivor v Fletcher, Leonard George & Ors [1984] FCA 70

Bound, Ivor v Fletcher, Leonard George & Ors [1984] FCA 70

There was no reasonable likelihood or suspicion of bias arising from Mr. McAskill's membership of the Promotions Appeal Board. The Board’s assessment of efficiency, including reference to an 'intuitive assessment', was within its remit and did not involve an improper exercise of power. There was evidence to justify the decision, and no error of law was established to warrant review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

Parties
Applicant: Ivor Bound; First Respondent: Leonard George Fletcher; First Respondent: Adrianus Koelewyn; First Respondent: Alan Ross McAskill; First Respondent: The Promotions Appeal Board; Second Respondent: The Australian Postal Commission; Third Respondent: Robert John Porteous
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 1984
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Bias, Judicial Review, Promotions Appeal, Improper Exercise of Power, Evidence for Decision
Administrative Law Employment Law Natural Justice Bias Judicial Review Promotions Appeal Improper Exercise of Power Evidence for Decision

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivor Bound

Applicant

Leonard George Fletcher

First Respondent

Adrianus Koelewyn

First Respondent

Alan Ross McAskill

First Respondent

The Promotions Appeal Board

First Respondent

The Australian Postal Commission

Second Respondent

Robert John Porteous

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a breach of natural justice or bias by composition of Promotions Appeal Board
  2. 2 Whether the Board improperly exercised its powers in determining efficiency
  3. 3 Whether the Board's use of 'intuitive assessment' was improper

Ratio Decidendi

There was no reasonable likelihood or suspicion of bias arising from Mr. McAskill's membership of the Promotions Appeal Board. The Board’s assessment of efficiency, including reference to an 'intuitive assessment', was within its remit and did not involve an improper exercise of power. There was evidence to justify the decision, and no error of law was established to warrant review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the third respondent’s costs of the application.