Barratt v Howard [1999] FCA 1183

Barratt v Howard [1999] FCA 1183

The applicant had not made out a case for declaratory or injunctive relief because the grounds identified for the Cabinet Secretary's possible report were capable of response and, as characterised by the Solicitor-General, were confined to the Defence Minister's loss of confidence and its perceived administrative consequences rather than any alleged fault or insufficiency by the applicant. Whether procedural fairness has been afforded depends on the matters ultimately reported by the Cabinet Secretary and relied on by the Prime Minister, and was to be determined at the end of the process.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Declaration and Injunctive Relief / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'right to Be Heard' 'termination of Appointment as Secretary to the Department of Defence' 'public Service Act 1922 S 37']
['administrative Law' 'public Service Employment'] ['procedural Fairness' 'right to Be Heard' 'termination of Appointment as Secretary to the Department of Defence' 'public Service Act 1922 S 37']

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

Procedural Posture

Application for Declaration and Injunctive Relief / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant was entitled to a statement of the grounds on which the Defence Minister asserted that he had no trust and confidence in the applicant.' "Whether procedural fairness required disclosure of the reasons for the Defence Minister's loss of confidence before steps under s 37 of the Public Service Act 1922 could be taken." 'Whether injunctive relief should restrain steps under s 37 of the Public Service Act 1922 until further information was provided.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant had not made out a case for declaratory or injunctive relief because the grounds identified for the Cabinet Secretary's possible report were capable of response and, as characterised by the Solicitor-General, were confined to the Defence Minister's loss of confidence and its perceived administrative consequences rather than any alleged fault or insufficiency by the applicant. Whether procedural fairness has been afforded depends on the matters ultimately reported by the Cabinet Secretary and relied on by the Prime Minister, and was to be determined at the end of the process.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed with costs.']