Bromet v Oddie [2002] FCA 1148

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bromet v Oddie [2002] FCA 1148 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Failure to comply with Defence Instructions – effect on validity of subsequent decision – requirement to provide a psychologist's report – whether an indispensable requirement or merely an administrative procedure – the subject matter of the report a relevant consideration. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Armed forces – power to suspend from flying duties – express power in Defence Instructions – exercise not justified by those Instructions – justified by general power of command. Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B Defence Act 1903 (Cth), s 9(2), s 9(3), s 9(4), s 9A Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth), s 3(1), s 29(1), s 98, s 99 Defence Force Regulations Part XV, 75(1) Defence Instructions (General) PERS 34-1, cl 1, cl 13 Defence Instructions (Air Force) PERS 4-19, cl 5, cl 12, cl 18, cl 19, cl 20, Annex B, Annex D Defence Instructions (Air Force) ADMIN 6-1, cl 16 The Commonwealth v Welsh (1947) 74 CLR 245 referred to Marks v The Commonwealth (1964) 111 CLR 549 referred to The Commonwealth v Quince (1944) 68 CLR 227 referred to Anderson v Sullivan (1997) 78 FCR 380 applied McManus v Scott-Charlton (1996) 70 FCR 16 referred to Mercantile Mutual Life Insurance Co Ltd v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 40 FCR 409 referred to Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 applied NAAV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228 referred to FLIGHT LIEUTENANT MARCUS ROBERT DAVID BROMET v GROUP CAPTAIN STEPHEN JOHN ODDIE, WING COMMANDER DIANE JENSEN, AIR MARSHAL ALLAN GRANT HOUSTON A3 of 2002 FLIGHT LIEUTENANT MARCUS ROBERT DAVID BROMET v GROUP CAPTAIN I J MEYN A16 of 2002

FINN J 16 SEPTEMBER 2002 CANBERRA