Turner, J. v. Linkenbagh, M. & Ors [1994] FCA 746

Turner, J. v. Linkenbagh, M. & Ors [1994] FCA 746

The Court held the Committee erred by taking into account irrelevant considerations, namely the Department's employment of the respondent despite prior convictions and continuation of employment during the disciplinary process, and incorrectly shifted the onus to the Department; but, due to legislative changes extinguishing the possibility of implementing the original dismissal, the application must be dismissed as relief would be futile.

Parties
Applicant: John Turner; First Respondent: Maria Linkenbagh; First Respondent: Margaret Bateson; First Respondent: Herbert Krueger; Second Respondent: Robert Brendan Howden
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 1994
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Disciplinary Decisions, Public Service Employee Discipline, Effect of Legislative Changes on Employment, Relevant Considerations in Disciplinary Appeals
Administrative Law Public Service Law Judicial Review of Disciplinary Decisions Public Service Employee Discipline Effect of Legislative Changes on Employment Relevant Considerations in Disciplinary 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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Turner

Applicant

Maria Linkenbagh

First Respondent

Margaret Bateson

First Respondent

Herbert Krueger

First Respondent

Robert Brendan Howden

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Disciplinary Appeal Committee took into account irrelevant considerations in determining disciplinary action against a public service employee
  2. 2 Whether departmental employment history and continuation during disciplinary proceedings are relevant considerations
  3. 3 Whether onus lies on Department to show dismissal is necessary

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the Committee erred by taking into account irrelevant considerations, namely the Department's employment of the respondent despite prior convictions and continuation of employment during the disciplinary process, and incorrectly shifted the onus to the Department; but, due to legislative changes extinguishing the possibility of implementing the original dismissal, the application must be dismissed as relief would be futile.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • There be no order as to the costs of the application.