Perkins, Lyle John v Cuthill, William John & Ors [1981] FCA 92

CATCHWORDS

Administrative law - appea) against dismissej by Disciplinary

ications

Appeal Buard of appeal against demotion under Telecomm

Act - neture of statutory power conferred by s.61(1}) of Act - application for judicial review - effect of Queensland AcE that "conviction ... deemed not to be a conviction" - board misteken as tu vfifences of which convicted - having regard to "ature of offences - meaning of "nature"

, Rules of natural justice - board "asking itse]£ the wrens question® - board deciding on e basis never put to ir and failang ty give applicant opportunity to disabuce them - beard

failing to take intu account relevant considerations - beard

SIOnS

actung on irrelevant considerations - Administrative Dc

(dedicial Review) Act 1977 s.5, s.15(1) ~ Telecommunicativre Act

1975 s.6l(1), s.61(2)(a), s.62(86) - Offenders Probation end

Parule Zct 1959 (Queensland) s.8, $.19

LYLE JOHN PERKINS v. WILLIAM JOHN CUTHILL and uthers

'

(No. VG 67 of 1981)

: KEELY Jd.

Coram Plece: Melbourne Date: 2 July 1981

ue wn ere wee Heme eRe

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALTA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. VG 67 of 1981

GENERAL DIVISION

wwe ew

BETWEEN: LYLE JOHN PERKINS

Applicant

AND: WILLIAM JOHN CUTHILL, KENNETH VINCENT LOUGENAN,

DESMOND JOHN LCVELOCK end AUSTRALIAN TRLECOMMUNT CATIONS

2 COMMISSION Respondents JUDCE MAKING ORDER: KEELY J. DATE OF ORDER: 2 July 1982 WHERE MADE: Melbourne THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The decision of the Disciplinary Appeal Boaré@, given on

12 March 1981, is quashed with -effect from and including the date on which it was made.

2. The fourth respondent, the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is directed to arrange for a disciplinary apreal

board under s.63 of the Telecommunications Act 1975, constituted

by a different chairman and different members from the first, second and third respondents, to hear and determine the applicant's appeal from the decision by the delegate of the Australian Telecommunications Commission, dated 9 December 1980. 3. It is declared that the decision of the said delegate has