Ansell, J.M. v. Wells, L.J. & Ors [1982] FCA 198

Ansell, J.M. v. Wells, L.J. & Ors [1982] FCA 198

Although the Promotions Appeal Committee breached principles of natural justice by failing to disclose adverse material and the case of the provisional promotee prior to the interview, the appeal was properly dismissed on the ground of substantial delay, which was fatal under judicial discretion. Delay caused prejudice, particularly to the confirmed promotee, and there was no satisfactory alternative remedy justifying the delay.

Parties
Appellant: Joan Margaret Ansell; Firstnamed Respondent: Leonie Jean Wells; Secondnamed Respondent: James Howard Lowe; Thirdnamed Respondent: Mary Jessica Bennett
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 1982
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Public Service Promotion, Delay, Writ of Certiorari
Administrative Law Judicial Review Natural Justice Public Service Promotion Delay Writ of Certiorari

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

Parties

Joan Margaret Ansell

Appellant

Leonie Jean Wells

Firstnamed Respondent

James Howard Lowe

Secondnamed Respondent

Mary Jessica Bennett

Thirdnamed Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Promotions Appeal Committee denied the appellant natural justice by failing to disclose adverse material or the case of the provisional promotee;
  2. 2 Whether delay precluded relief by certiorari;

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Promotions Appeal Committee breached principles of natural justice by failing to disclose adverse material and the case of the provisional promotee prior to the interview, the appeal was properly dismissed on the ground of substantial delay, which was fatal under judicial discretion. Delay caused prejudice, particularly to the confirmed promotee, and there was no satisfactory alternative remedy justifying the delay.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is to pay one half of the respondents' costs of the appeal.