Federal Court of Australia
JUDGMENT No. wel QZ. 2a eect Le.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No G 729 of 1994 ) GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: CHRISTINA PANAGOPOULOS Applicant AND: THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS' AFFAIRS AND OTHERS
Respondent
Coram: Davies J. Date: 12 December 1994 Place: Sydney REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EX TEMPORE
This is an apphcation m which the ultimate relief sought 1s orders of review with respect to decisions to retire the applicant, Christina Panagopoulos, from the
Commonwealth Public Service.
I should commence by saying that in my view, the substantive laws and the procedures provided under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (the "ADJR Act") do not provide the best remedy for reviewing disciplinary decisions, retirement decisions, or for that matter, any other decision dealing with the
promotion, transfer or alteration of the mghts or status of Commonwealth public
-2-
servants. It is :mportant that there be adequate merits review of all such decisions. Merits review is far more appropriate than the review available under the ADJR Act. Review by this Court very often cannot get to the heart of the merits of a matter, looking merely to questions such as whether all relevant facts were taken into account, whether any irrelevant fact was taken into account and whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision maker could have arrived at it. Those are the principal grounds m many cases. Other grounds, such as non-compliance with procedural requirements and so on are also relied upon. In the end, the Court cannot get to the merits of the case. It 1s desirable that there be adequate merits
review whereby this 1s achieved.
Having said that, I turn to the motion we are dealimg with this morning. The principal application seeks review of two decisions. One was the primary decision by a Mr Peter Walker, a delegate of the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, to retire Miss Christina Panagopoulos. The time for review of this decision
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate