JANSON v SCANLON and ANOR [1996] NSWCA 274

JANSON v SCANLON and ANOR [1996] NSWCA 274

By majority, the Tribunal's decision did not disclose an error of law, as the breach of guidelines was neither clear nor substantial and had little relevance to merit. Guidelines could not override the statutory duty of the Commission to appoint the best candidate on merit, and Ms Scanlon was eligible at the time of promotion.

Parties
Appellant: Kenneth Janson; Respondent: Lesley Scanlon; Respondent: Susanne Wright; Respondent: Government and Related Employees' Appeal Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment by NSW Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Promotion Appeal, Appointment on Merit, Eligibility for Promotion, Procedural Fairness, Guidelines in Employment
Administrative Law Public Service Law Promotion Appeal Appointment on Merit Eligibility for Promotion Procedural Fairness Guidelines in Employment

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth Janson

Appellant

Lesley Scanlon

Respondent

Susanne Wright

Respondent

Government and Related Employees' Appeal Tribunal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment by NSW Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appointment and promotion should be made solely on merit or also eligibility as defined by guidelines
  2. 2 Whether breach of published guidelines affects eligibility and appointment
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider eligibility and relevance of guidelines

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Tribunal's decision did not disclose an error of law, as the breach of guidelines was neither clear nor substantial and had little relevance to merit. Guidelines could not override the statutory duty of the Commission to appoint the best candidate on merit, and Ms Scanlon was eligible at the time of promotion.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs