SHELDON v NEW SOUTH WALES TAFE COMMISSION [1997] NSWCA 284

SHELDON v NEW SOUTH WALES TAFE COMMISSION

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

MEAGHER JA 30 April 1997

[1997] NSWCA 284

Meagher JA In this matter the claimant, Dr Tatiana Sheldon, was in dispute with the New South Wales TAFE Commission which ultimately led to the TAFE Commission ordering her to retain her position but it reduced her salary for a period of two years. On appeal to the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal, that tribunal ordered her to either submit her resignation within fourteen days, or if not she was to be dismissed. She has appealed against that decision. That decision is dated 16 April 1997.

The applicant has filed a notice of appeal which does not say what the grounds of appeal are. This is a somewhat important defect as in law she is limited to points of law.

She has in the meantime filed a notice of motion seeking a stay pending the hearing of the appeal, or for some lesser period.

In my view the notice of motion should be dismissed. I have come to this conclusion for the following reasons: first, there is a normal presumption in favour of the validity of any curial or semi-curial decision. Secondly, there is the absence of any specific ground of law on which she wishes to attack that decision. Thirdly, Dr Sheldon's inability, in the course of making submissions, to explain clearly any one reason why she wished to attack GREAT's decision.

It flows from that that there was a consequent failure on her part to show any probability that the court's decision was erroneous. Coupled with that I am unmoved by any given explanation of the great delay in bringing this application, which could have been brought at any time after 16 April. There is at least fourteen days delay, which has not been the subject of any coherent explanation.

Finally, it appears to me that if the appeal does proceed and is successful, and this Court holds that GREAT's decision was wrong or invalid or in some way tainted, and that its order for her dismissal could not therefore be upheld, she would be in a position where she would be able to sue for wrongful dismissal and perhaps demand reinstatement.