LANGLEY v THE GOVERNOR OF NEW SOUTH WALES and ORS [1991] NSWCA 170

LANGLEY v THE GOVERNOR OF NEW SOUTH WALES and ORS SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

SAMUELS, PRIESTLEY and CLARKE JJA 29 July 1991, 29 July 1991 [1991] NSWCA 170

CONTEMPT OF COURT — statement of charge wholly without foundation — summons dismissed with costs.

Samuels JA The claimant, Eleanor Ruth Langley, held an appointment on probation in the Attorney General's Department, Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. There was a recommendation from the Director of the Bureau to the Director of Management Division that the appointment should be annulled on the grounds of incompetence, and an appropriate notice was served on Ms Langley of that decision. Other administrative steps of a linked kind were also taken. A recommendation was made on 25 April 1991 to the Governor by the Acting Head of the Department and endorsed by the Attorney General; and on 1 May 1991 the Governor annulled, or as Ms Langley would put it, purported to annul, the appointment. On 6 May 1991 the claimant filed an appeal to the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal under the eponymous Act of 1980. On 20 May a notice of annulment and final cheque, and an exit form, were issued by the Acting Head of the Department giving effect to the annulment, and these documents were received by the opponent on 28 May 1991.

The GREAT Act, as I may call it, in s26 deals with the carrying into effect of decisions of the kind referred to in s23(1) which includes, in para (d), the annulment of the appointment of an employee appointed on probation. S26(1)(b) provides that a decision of that kind shall not be carried into effect where a notice of appeal is lodged with respect to the decision until the appeal is determined. There may well be an argument, therefore, (I wish to make it clear that I am not endeavouring to decide the point at this stage) that there was a failure to comply with the requirements of s26. Ms Langley, the claimant, took certain steps in order to vindicate what she perceived to be her rights. These included the filing of a summons on 20 June 1991 in this court claiming a variety of different relief, including orders that the annulment of her appointment be withdrawn, for reinstatement and that her probation be terminated. I pass by the question whether this Court has power to make any of these orders which is at the least highly dubious. But for present purposes the summons goes on to charge the first opponent, that is the Governor of New South Wales, and the second opponent, the Acting Head of the Attorney General's Department, one Peter John Webb, with a contempt of court. The statement of charge reads as follows: