Thomas Edward Williamson v Charles Ross Marrison & Ors [1982] FCA 36

Thomas Edward Williamson v Charles Ross Marrison & Ors [1982] FCA 36

There is no requirement in law that a Disciplinary Appeal Board must hear and determine a submission that there is no case to answer without first requiring the employee to elect not to call evidence. The Board's procedures are, subject to the Act and regulations, within its discretion and such disciplinary proceedings do not attract the rules of criminal justice as to 'no case' applications.

Parties
Applicant: Thomas Edward Williamson; Firstnamed Respondent: Charles Ross Morrison; Secondnamed Respondent: John Walter Sleep; Thirdnamed Respondent: Douglas Dowstow Carpenter; Fourthnamed Respondent: Donald Roy White
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 1982
Procedural Posture
Application for Order of Review Under Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 / Interlocutory / Substantive Legal Point Only
Outcome
Application for order of review not upheld on the substantive legal point; further hearing stood over.
Legal Topics
Public Sector Discipline, Natural Justice, Procedural Fairness in Disciplinary Proceedings, No Case to Answer Submission in Administrative Law
Administrative Law Employment Law Public Sector Discipline Natural Justice Procedural Fairness in Disciplinary Proceedings No Case to Answer Submission in Administrative Law

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Edward Williamson

Applicant

Charles Ross Morrison

Firstnamed Respondent

John Walter Sleep

Secondnamed Respondent

Douglas Dowstow Carpenter

Thirdnamed Respondent

Donald Roy White

Fourthnamed Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Order of Review Under Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 / Interlocutory / Substantive Legal Point Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Disciplinary Appeal Board is required in law to hear and determine a submission of no case to answer without requiring the employee to elect not to call evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Board's process breached natural justice or involved error of law

Ratio Decidendi

There is no requirement in law that a Disciplinary Appeal Board must hear and determine a submission that there is no case to answer without first requiring the employee to elect not to call evidence. The Board's procedures are, subject to the Act and regulations, within its discretion and such disciplinary proceedings do not attract the rules of criminal justice as to 'no case' applications.

Court Disposition

Application for order of review not upheld on the substantive legal point; further hearing stood over.

Orders

  • The further hearing of the appeal stood over to allow the parties to consider their positions in light of these reasons.