ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — JUDICIAL REVIEW — PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS — allegation of serious misconduct — plaintiff was suspended under a university policy — express obligation to afford procedural fairness — decision-maker's interview of complainant prior to the decision to suspend the plaintiff — statements made in interview not disclosed to the plaintiff before the decision to suspend was made — whether decision was made in breach of the obligation to afford procedural fairness to the plaintiff — whether interview material was required to be disclosed for the plaintiff to have an opportunity to respond on the issue of any risk to health and safety of the complainant and on the issue of measures to minimise any risk alternative to outright suspension — whether there existed apprehended bias in the decision-maker having made an earlier decision in favour of suspension — whether decision affected by error as to jurisdictional facts or jurisdictional error or improper purpose or Wednesbury unreasonableness — form of relief — declaration — leave to parties in respect of injunctive relief claimed
Case Details
Citation[2014] NSWSC 82
CourtNSWSC
JurisdictionNew South Wales
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
