COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR NSW & ANOR v Jeffrey JARRATT [2003] NSWCA 326

Reported Decision : 59 NSWLR 87

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR NSW & ANOR v Jeffrey JARRATT [2003] NSWCA 326 HEARING DATE(S) : 21 May 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 11 November 2003

JUDGMENT OF : Mason P at 1; Meagher JA at 143; Santow J at 144 DECISION : Appeal upheld.

CATCHWORDS : Employment - Removal from office as Deputy Commissioner of Police without notice or clear assignment of cause - s51 Police Service Act 1990 - Crown prerogative - Dismissal at pleasure - whether duty of procedural fairness - whether breach of contract - Damages - statutory compensation - whether respondent precluded from damages claim for wrongful dismissal (D) PARTIES : COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR NSW & ANOR v Jeffrey JARRATT FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 41034/02 Appellant: R C Kenzie QC/ P Ginters COUNSEL : Respondent: T Tobin QC/ D Campbell SC/ R Glasson SOLICITORS : Appellant: I V Knight (Crown) Respondent: Verekers

LOWER COURT Supreme Court - Common Law Division JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT CLD 30060/01 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Simpson J JUDICIAL OFFICER :

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 41034/2002 SC 30060/2001

MASON P MEAGHER JA SANTOW JA

Tuesday 11 November 2003

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR NEW SOUTH WALES & Anor v Jeffrey JARRATT

FACTS The respondent was removed from office as Deputy Commissioner of the Police Service of NSW without notice or clear assignment of cause. The Commissioner initiated the formal steps for removal because of dissatisfaction with the respondent's performance, although whether his dissatisfaction was justified is not an issue in these proceedings. The removal was effected in accordance with the procedures stipulated in s51 of the Police Service Act 1990 (the Act). The respondent subsequently sought and obtained compensation from the Statutory and Other Officers Remuneration Tribunal (SOORT) in accordance with s53 of the Act. He also sought and obtained declaratory relief in the Supreme Court that the removal was in breach of a duty of procedural fairness and a breach of contract. He was awarded damages and costs.