inquiry that was undertaken by the Commission. It is a view with which I do not agree and, in my opinion, demonstrates error on the part of the Full Bench.
67 The second finding by the Full Bench was that the Commission was obliged to make actual findings of fact on critical matters in issue, before it could determine whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The Workplace Relations Act provides that when an application for relief in respect of termination of employment is made the Commission must, in the first instance, attempt to settle the matter by conciliation: s 170CF. If conciliation is unsuccessful, and the employee so elects, then the application is to proceed to arbitration: s 170CFA. In determining whether a termination is harsh, unjust or unreasonable the Commission is required by s 170CG(3) to have regard to:
"(a) whether there was a valid reason for the termination related to the capacity or conduct of the employee or to the operational requirements of the employers undertaking, establishment or service; and
(b) whether the employee was notified of that reason; and
(c) whether the employee was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the employee; and
(d) if the termination related to unsatisfactory performance by the employee - whether the employee had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the termination; and
(e) any other matters that the Commission considers relevant."
68 As stated earlier, the Commission determined that the dismissal of Ms Edwards was harsh, unjust or unreasonable notwithstanding that she had been guilty of misconduct. The finding of misconduct was not express, but clearly implicit, as the Full Bench pointed out. What is not clear is whether the Commission accepted that all of the allegations of misconduct had been made out. It is unlikely that it did, having regard to the fact that the Commission appears to have rejected some of the evidence given by the complainant and Ms Stray. Nevertheless, the Commission did decide the application upon the assumption that all that had been alleged against Ms Edwards was true. That is why the Commission said that it would not decide whether the charges were proven, but that it would determine whether "the penalty was disproportionate and whether the principle of 'a fair go all round' was applied". The question that falls for determination is whether the Commission was obliged to decide whether all the alleged acts of misconduct had taken place or whether it could proceed upon the assumption that they had.
69 The answer to this question should be determined against the following background. First, whether a dismissal is harsh, unjust or unreasonable will inevitably depend upon all of the circumstances. In a case where the dismissal is based on misconduct, one of those circumstances will be whether the misconduct occurred. It will also be necessary to consider the precise nature of the misconduct in question and the circumstances in which it occurred. This would be so even if s 170CG(3) was not in the statute.
70 Second, it is not uncommon for a decision-maker, including a judicial officer, to arrive at a decision on the basis of the existence of facts which have been assumed rather than found. Sometimes this will occur because the facts are not put in issue. On other occasions an assumption of fact will be made, because the matter at hand can be resolved on the basis of that assumption without injustice to any party. This will commonly occur where a party can succeed or fail on one of two or more separate grounds. Then it may well be appropriate to assume the existence of one ground, even when it involves issues of fact, and resolve the dispute on the basis of the other ground or grounds.
71 Third, although I place little weight on this factor, it must be remembered that occasionally a party is precluded from asserting the true facts, but is bound to proceed on an assumed state of facts if, to do otherwise, would lead the opposite party to suffer a detriment: this is the so-called common assumption estoppel.
72 Commonsense suggests that there will be occasions where it is possible to determine whether a dismissal has been harsh, unjust or unreasonable without a full investigation into the reasons for dismissal. Take as an example a case where an employee has been dismissed for what, on any view, is a trivial offence. Assume that an examination of all of the relevant circumstances, including the nature of the offence if one had been committed, clearly discloses that the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. In that event, statutory provision apart, must the Commission determine whether there has been misconduct when the resolution of that issue will not have any bearing on the outcome of the application? I cannot see any reason why the Commission should be required to proceed in that way. In my opinion, if an application can properly be disposed of by assuming certain facts to be true there is no obligation to determine whether the assumed facts are true. To put the matter another way, speaking generally, if the outcome of an application under s 170CE will be the same whether or not certain facts are found or assumed, there is no reason in principle why the Commission should not proceed upon the assumption that those facts have been established.
73 Moreover, there will often be good reason why the Commission may wish to avoid making a finding on disputed questions of fact. In the context of a dispute between an employer and an employee, to make such a finding will often require the Commission to consider matters going to credit. In those circumstances an adverse finding can have a tendency to aggravate tensions which is not conducive to a harmonious workplace environment. It must be remembered that proceedings before the Commission are by way of conciliation and, if conciliation fails, by arbitration. Such proceedings will often depend for their effectiveness on the avoidance of unnecessary confrontation between the parties who might be required to continue their relationship in the workplace.
74 It remains to consider whether s 170CG(3) requires a different conclusion. In my opinion it does not. By that subsection the Commission is required to have regard to whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal. Generally the Commission will comply with this requirement by deciding whether there was in fact a valid reason for dismissal and, if there was, by taking it into account in its determination. On the other hand, the Commission will be doing precisely the same thing if it acts upon the assumption that there was a valid reason; that is if it accepts as true the reason put forward by the employer that is said to justify the dismissal. In other words, if the Commission deals with the application by accepting as correct an assertion made by the employer as regards the reasons for dismissal for the purpose of its determination, the Commission will be taking that reason into account as required by s 170CG(3). To construe the subsection in a way that will not permit the Commission to make such an assumption is to give it an unreasonable construction. Such a result should be avoided unless there is clear statutory language to the contrary. I should emphasise that there will be few cases where the Commission will be able to proceed on an assumption about the existence of a valid reason for termination. Usually it will only do so when the result will be the same regardless of the truth of the assumption.
75 I now turn from what I have described as the "merits" grounds of appeal relied upon by Telstra to what was its principal ground. That ground was whether the decision of the Commission was vitiated because the Commissioner had breached the rules of natural justice, or procedural fairness as those rules are now commonly referred to, in that the Commissioner was disqualified from determining the claim on account of apprehended bias.
76 It is now accepted that an administrative body such as the Commission is subject to the principles of natural justice. The House of Lords in Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 freed supervising courts from the restriction that had been imposed by Atkin LJ in The King v Electricity Commissioners; Ex parte London Electricity Joint Committee Co (1920) Ltd [1924] 1 KB 171 that the only body required to satisfy the obligation was a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal. Now it is clear that whenever a statute confers a power to destroy, defeat or prejudice a person's rights, interests or legitimate expectations, the rules of natural justice regulate the exercise of that power unless they are clearly excluded: Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596 at 598.
77 The duty to act fairly (which is what is required by natural justice) has two basic components. The first, is usually known as the right to be heard: the so-called audi alteram partem principle. The second, nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, which literally means "no-one can be a judge in his own cause", requires that a decision-maker must be free from bias. Even here there must be caution as the word "bias" is not intended to be used in its literal sense to describe the ambit within which the nemo judex rule will be applied. For example, a pecuniary interest in a case will constitute "bias" no matter how open-minded in fact the decision-maker may be: Dimes v Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal Pty (1852) 3 HLCas 759. In this case we are concerned with the requirement that a decision-maker be impartial (free from bias) in the sense that he must approach the resolution of a case in a fair and even-handed manner. If it appears that the decision-maker will not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the case, the decision cannot stand.
78 The appearance of bias can manifest itself in many different ways. The allegation here is that comments made by the Commissioner during the course of the hearing disclosed that he would not approach his duties with complete impartiality. It is not alleged that the Commissioner had preconceived views about the issues that fell for his determination such that he brought a closed mind to the case from the outset. Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568 was such a case. Here it was said that the Commissioner had so conducted himself during the hearing that there was a loss of the appearance of impartiality. It was also alleged that bias could be inferred from the reasons for the decision itself.
79 Telstra relied upon what it described as excessive questioning and pejorative comments made by the Commissioner during the course of the hearing. In this connection reference should be made to Yuill v Yuill [1945] P 15, a case where the trial judge engaged in extensive cross-examination and Jones v National Coal Board [1957] 2 QB 55 where it was also alleged that the judge had descended from his neutral duties on the bench to the well of the courtroom. In Jones, Denning LJ said (at 64):
"The judge's part in all this is to hearken to the evidence, only himself asking questions of witnesses when it is necessary to clear up any point that has been overlooked or left obscure; to see that the advocates behave themselves seemly and keep to the rules laid down by law; to exclude irrelevancies and discourage repetition; to make sure by wise intervention that he follows the points that the advocates are making and can assess their worth; and at the end to make up his mind where the truth lies. If he goes beyond this, he drops the mantle of a judge and assumes the robe of an advocate; and the change does not become him well. Lord Chancellor Bacon spoke right when he said that 'Patience and gravity of hearing is an essential part of justice; and an over-speaking judge is no well-tuned cymbal.'"
80 A question not raised before the Full Bench was whether it had jurisdiction to deal with the allegation of apprehended bias remembering that its power on appeal is confined by s 170JF(2) to a case where the Commission was "in error in deciding to make the order". It has been held that an indispensable condition of a successful appeal is the existence of error, whether of fact or law, on the part of the Commission: Sammartino v Commissioner Foggo [1999] FCA 1231. An appeal from an "error in deciding to make the order" is not dissimilar to a general right of appeal. In the Federal Court, the Full Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine "appeals from judgments": see s 24 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). In the Supreme Court of Victoria, an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal "from any determination of the Trial Division constituted by a Judge": see s 17(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic). In New South Wales see s 75A of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW). On one view Parliament intended an appeal to the Full Bench against "an error in deciding to make the order" to be substantially the same as a general right of appeal from a judgment or order of a single judge of a superior court. In Construction, Forestry Mining and Energy Union v Giudice (1998) 159 ALR 1 the Full Court considered the nature of an appeal under s 45 although not one that was circumscribed by s 170JF(2). An appeal under s 45 can be brought in respect of ten different classes of decisions. As the type of decision that is subject to appeal is material in assessing the nature of the appeal, the Full Court said it would not accept that all appeals which might be brought under s 45 were of the same character. What the Full Court had in mind was that the nature of an appeal under s 45 might differ from one class of decision to another. Whether this approach be correct need not be determined for in this case we are concerned with an appeal that is regulated by s 170JF(2). The nature of such an appeal may well be different from other appeals brought under s 45. One object of s 170JF(2) is to ensure that an appeal in relation to an order made under Subdivision B of Division III is limited in some respects. In the case of these appeals there will not be a fresh hearing, but there will be either a rehearing as with appeals in superior courts (as to which see Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531) or an appeal in the strict sense (The Victorian Stevedoring & General Contracting Co Pty Ltd & Meakes v Dignan (1931) 46 CLR 73). In each case an appeal is available for error of law.
81 Does the denial of procedural fairness result in an error of law? The leading case in Australia is Escobar v Spindaleri (1986) 7 NSWLR 51. The case concerned an appeal from the Workers' Compensation Court to the Court of Appeal in New South Wales. The right to appeal was confined to an error of law. The alleged error was the refusal by the Workers' Compensation Court to permit counsel for the applicant the opportunity to address the court. The Court of Appeal held that this amounted to an error of law. Escobar has been followed on many occasions: see eg Yates Property Corporation Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Darling Harbour Authority (1991) 24 NSWLR 156 at 186, Smith v Allan, Secretary, Treasury of New South Wales (1993) 31 NSWLR 52 at 60, Totalisator Agency Board of New South Wales v Casey (1994) 54 IR 354 at 359, and Cramer v Davies (1997) 72 ALJR 146 at 149. In England see Maurice v London County Council [1964] 2 QB 362. For an example of a case where a reasonable apprehension of bias has resulted in a decision that was said to be wrong in law, see Burwood Municipal Council v Harvey (1995) 86 LGERA 389.
82 I recognise that it is the traditional function of a superior court of record with power to issue prerogative writs to ensure that justice is administered and not impeded in lower courts and tribunals: John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae (1955) 93 CLR 351 at 363. However, it is not inappropriate to construe a power of appeal such as is conferred by s 45, as qualified by s 170JF(2), in a broad fashion. If an administrative tribunal is established to hear appeals from orders of another administrative tribunal, there is no reason why the appellate tribunal should not be permitted to determine the appeal on the ground that there has been a departure from the rules of natural justice. As Kirby P (as his Honour then was) pointed out in an analogous context in Smith v Allan, above, the prospect of an application for prerogative relief being brought at the same time as an appeal to an administrative tribunal is not to be encouraged. This is especially so in the field of industrial relations where the lawfulness of decisions and natural justice are usual prerequisites to proper conduct. I agree with Kirby P that it would be a departure from commonsense to require a person wishing to challenge the decision of a tribunal to be required to bring two proceedings to do so. Further, if there is an ambiguity in the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal it is as well to prefer a construction which permits it to perform fully the functions which are appropriate to its purposes. Hence the "error" which is appealable should not be narrowly confined and should be held to include a decision reached in breach of the rules of natural justice.
83 To determine whether there was apprehended bias the Full Bench referred in detail to the reasons for decision and to the transcript of the proceedings before the Commission. It identified passages in the reasons where the Commission was critical of witnesses called by Telstra. For example, as regards Ms Kinsella-Taylor the Commission said that to accept her evidence that she was intimidated by Ms Edwards "is to expect the Commission to stretch its imagination beyond belief". A similar comment was made concerning the evidence given by Ms Stray. Precisely which aspects of their evidence was not accepted, if any was rejected, does not appear. Telstra was criticised for having called Ms Duffus. The Commission said that Ms Duffus was not comfortable in giving evidence and it attributed this to "those [within Telstra] who had placed her in what appeared to be a press-gang situation". The pejorative comments made about Mr Littlejohn have already been noted. Mr Merrigan, the manager who had dismissed Ms Edwards, was also subjected to critical comment for having "made up his mind about [about Ms Edwards'] fate well before [Telstra's] so-called investigation was properly instigated, let alone completed". The investigation was also criticised. Ms Cameron, the manager of the call centre where Ms Edwards was employed, was rebuked for suggesting that Ms Edwards produce a blood test to see how much she had been drinking on the day of the events in questions. The Commission said of Mr Cameron that he "showed an amazing lack of recollection when it came to his conversation with Ms Hughson" the fellow employee who was called by Ms Edwards.
84 The Full Bench then referred to various passages in the transcript that disclosed the Commission had taken a role in the examination of the witnesses. I need not set out those passages for reasons that will become apparent. However, it is necessary to record the views that were reached by the Full Bench after considering the transcript. The Full Bench said that some of the questions asked were "inappropriately framed", because they contained implicit criticism of the witnesses. Other questions were described as "leading" or amounting to "aggressive cross-examination", which "was effective enough but … unfair because it was conducted by the Commission" or "unfair questions" or "excessive". The Full Bench said that comments made by the Commission were "inappropriate" and contained "criticism [that was] unjust and unwarranted". Questions were criticised because they assumed the existence of facts which were never established.
85 All in all the Full Bench was very critical of the manner in which the Commission had conducted the case. When it came to consider whether that conduct established apprehended bias, the Full Bench appears to have approached the matter in accordance with Telstra's submission "that in this case the various interventions made by the Commissioner during the course of the oral evidence, when viewed in light of passages in his subsequent judgment in which adverse comment was made about Telstra's case, give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias". After its review of the transcript and the reasons for decision, the Full Bench "formed the view that Commissioner Tolley's decision, when viewed in light of his conduct during the course of the hearing, does have the effect of conveying an appearance of impermissible bias in the actual decision to a reasonable and intelligent lay observer" (citation omitted).
86 For present purposes I will proceed upon the assumption that the Full Bench has correctly characterised what had occurred at the hearing as amounting to apprehended bias. It is certainly unfortunate that the Commission took such an aggressive attitude towards the witnesses called by Telstra. No doubt the Commission was trying to do no more than ascertain the truth. No doubt also the Commission went further than was appropriate in attempting to discover the truth. Telstra may easily have been left with the impression that the Commission had formed an opinion adverse to its case which could not be altered by further argument or evidence.
87 However, as regards what occurred during the hearing, counsel for Telstra made no objection. This failure to object presented a difficulty. It is now accepted that a party can waive his right to object to a judicial or an administrative decision made by a decision-maker who is guilty of bias: Reg v Nailsworth Licensing Justices; Ex parte Bird [1953] 1 WLR 1046; H Tolputt & Co Ltd v Mole [1911] 1 KB 836; The King v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256; Vakauta v Kelly, above. An allegation of bias must be raised in a timely fashion, provided there is a practical opportunity for a party to object. Importantly, a party cannot await the outcome of a case before raising the objection if the party was aware that the ground was available for otherwise the ground will be waived.
88 In this case Telstra, through its counsel, was fully aware of the circumstances from which bias could be inferred as a result of the conduct of the Commissioner during the hearing. This notwithstanding, no complaint was made to the Commission. The Commissioner was not asked to disqualify himself from continuing to sit on the arbitration. Nor was there anything said that would indicate to the Commissioner that he should consider his position having regard to the way he had conducted himself. Prima facie, therefore, Telstra could not challenge the decision on the ground of bias.
89 So far I have been concerned to deal with apprehended bias that manifested itself during the hearing, but that is not the only place where it is alleged that bias was demonstrated. Telstra also contended that the reasons for the decision disclose ostensible bias. If that be the case then no question of waiver could arise. When judgment was delivered there was no opportunity to question its contents.
90 The material that was relied upon to show that there was ostensible bias in the reasons were the disparaging comments made about the witnesses called by Telstra and about the processes which led to the termination of Ms Edwards' employment. However, taken alone those comments are not likely to convey to a reasonable and intelligent observer an impermissible appearance of bias. The comments made were blunt and even robust. They show that the Commission had formed a strong view about the way Telstra had handled the matter. But they do not go beyond what is permissible. Indeed it does not appear that the Full Bench was of a different opinion. Rather, the Full Bench said that it was the reasons for decision "when viewed in light of [the Commissioner's] conduct during the course of the hearing" that demonstrated ostensible bias. By themselves the reasons were not sufficient to establish ostensible bias, in my opinion.
91 When it came to consider the question of waiver, the Full Bench did not draw a distinction between bias based on the conduct of the Commissioner during the course of the hearing and bias as disclosed in the reasons. To the contrary, the Full Bench took into account both the conduct of the Commissioner and the reasons. It said: "As Vakauta v Kelly shows, however, if the decision gives greater substance to the factors evident during the proceedings it would be unjust to deny relief." Thus the Full Bench held that waiver had not been made out.
92 Vakauta v Kelly is not authority for the proposition for which it was cited. The principle to be derived from that case is that there will be no waiver, notwithstanding that no objection is taken to comments made during a hearing, if those comments are revived in the reasons for judgment. Vakauta v Kelly was a personal injuries action. The trial judge made a number of critical comments of three doctors to be called for the defendant. The trial judge said that the doctors' opinions were "almost inevitably slanted in favour of the [defendant's insurer] by whom they had been retained, consciously or unconsciously". He was also critical of the efficiency of the defendant's insurer and said that it "would have to carry the can" or that it may be "necessary to tip the can on the [insurer]". The defendant's counsel took no objection to the remarks and made no application to the trial judge to disqualify himself. One of the three doctors, Dr Lawson, was called as a witness. The report of another was tendered in evidence. The trial judge found in favour of the plaintiff and awarded him damages. In his reasons the trial judge said of the doctor called to give evidence that his evidence "which was as negative as it always seems to be - and based as usual upon his non-acceptance of the genuineness of any plaintiff's complaints of pain".
93 The High Court held that statements which the trial judge had made during the hearing, which disclosed ostensible bias, had been "effectively revived" by what had been said in the reasons. In their joint judgment Brennan, Deane and Gaudron JJ said (at 573) that the statements made during the hearing had been "effectively revived" in the reasons because:
"a lay observer would be likely to see the derogatory and wide-sweeping references to Dr Lawson in the judgment … as indicating that his Honour was concerned to vindicate his preconceived and very strong adverse views about the reliability of Dr Lawson as a witness and had allowed those views to prejudice his whole approach to the case to the detriment of the defendant".
Dawson J said (at 579):
"I can see no reason why [the remarks of the trial judge in his judgment] should not be considered in the context of the remarks made earlier in the trial. So considered, it seems to me that the conclusion is inevitable that his Honour failed to consider the evidence in the case fairly and impartially, putting to one side his preconceived views about the [insurer] and its witnesses. … Although the offending remarks in the judgment are confined to Dr Lawson, in the context of the remarks made by the trial judge during the trial, they must, I think, display a lack of impartiality extending to the defendant's case generally."
Finally, Toohey J said (at 588):
"Counsel for the respondent conceded, correctly in my view, that it is permissible to evaluate what was said in the judgment in the light of what had been said at the hearing. Even without such resort, the remarks made by his Honour concerning Dr Lawson amounted to ostensible bias because they would lead to the conclusion, in the mind of the reasonable or fair-minded observer, that his Honour's assessment of Dr Lawson's evidence was heavily influenced by views he had formed on other occasions rather than by an assessment based on the case in hand. That conclusion becomes irresistible when regard is had to what had been said by his Honour concerning Dr Lawson and [the insurer's] witnesses during the hearing."
94 The defence of waiver is not to be determined in the manner suggested by the Full Bench, namely by asking whether what was said by the Commission in its reasons gave greater substance to the matters that occurred during the hearing. The true question is whether the reasons demonstrate, or at least demonstrate the real possibility of, ostensible bias. In considering that issue it is permissible to have regard to what occurred at the hearing. In this connection, however, regard cannot be had to what occurred at the hearing unless the reasons actually point towards the possibility of bias. If it were otherwise a defence of waiver would have little practical utility in the case of bias manifested during a hearing.
95 It is in dealing with the question of waiver that the Full Bench fell into error. The statements made by the Commission in its reasons for decision, while certainly critical of Telstra and its witnesses, fell a long way short of suggesting ostensible bias. Nothing in the reasons "effectively revived" what was said or what had occurred during the hearing. Thus it was not permissible for the Full Bench to look to the conduct of the Commissioner at the hearing to determine whether the statements made in the reasons justified a finding of bias. The Full Bench reached the wrong conclusion, because it failed correctly to apply what was said in Vakauta v Kelly.
96 The Full Bench set aside the decision of the Commission, because of the three alleged errors that I have mentioned. The Full Bench was itself in error in that regard. The difficult issue that now arises is whether the errors that are manifest in the decision of the Full Bench warrant the issue of the prerogative writ of certiorari to quash their decision and the writ of mandamus requiring the Full Bench to determine the matter again.
97 Speaking generally, certiorari may be granted when an inferior court or tribunal acts in excess of jurisdiction, on in want of jurisdiction, or if the ground of review is error of law on the face of the record. At one time it was thought that the record might include any reasons that may be given for a decision and sometimes even the transcript: see the cases cited in Hockey v Yelland (1984) 157 CLR 124 at 143. That view has now been decisively rejected by the High Court in Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163. Although the High Court accepted that, to a very limited extent, parts of the transcript and reasons might be incorporated in the record, the circumstances where this can now occur are so confined that it might fairly be said that the exception is of little practical utility. Rarely will this type of error be demonstrated.
98 There is no defined meaning to the phrases "excess of jurisdiction" and "want of jurisdiction". Sometimes the terms are used interchangeably to describe a case where an inferior court or tribunal has no jurisdiction to exercise in contrast to a case where there is jurisdiction to exercise but there has been a failure or refusal to exercise it. In Public Service Association of South Australia v Federated Clerks' Union of Australia, South Australian Branch (1991) 173 CLR 132 at 164 McHugh J explained that:
"there is a 'want of jurisdiction' when a court or tribunal does an act which is beyond its general power or authority and that there is an 'excess of jurisdiction' when it does an act, the doing of which is within its general power or authority but which was done in breach of the conditions which authorise the doing of acts of that class or nature."
In Craig there is a detailed discussion of what will constitute "jurisdictional error" when committed by an inferior court. What is in issue in this case, however, is what is the nature of a jurisdictional error when committed by an administrative tribunal.
99 One reason why courts have distinguished between jurisdictional errors on the one hand and other errors of law (mere errors) on the other is that only when jurisdictional error is shown will a tribunal be restrained by prohibition from proceeding further or will its decision set aside by certiorari. A mere error of law is one which has been arrived at on an issue that has been entrusted to the inferior court or tribunal to decide for itself, even if its decision is wrong: Parisienne Basket Shoes Pty Ltd v Whyte (1937) 59 CLR 369 at 391-392.
100 Accordingly, when an inferior court or tribunal is established by statute one way that it may be possible to determine whether an error made by the court or tribunal is a jurisdictional error is to ask the following question: Did the legislature intend the issue in respect of which the error has been shown to be within the jurisdiction conferred on the inferior court or tribunal? Usually the legislature will not provide a direct answer to this question. In that case the court must determine the answer not only from the wording of the statute conferring jurisdiction on the inferior court or tribunal, but also from the nature of the court or tribunal that is established, the purpose for its establishment, the nature of the issue to be determined by the court or tribunal, the area of expertise, professional qualification of its members and, no doubt, other matters that are not possible to state exhaustively.
101 Although many factors are to be taken into account the one that is the most important, and it is usually decisive, is whether the body in question is a court of law or an administrative authority. In this connection it is necessary to refer to Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, the case that Lord Diplock has on more than one occasion described as a legal landmark that made possible the development of a rational and comprehensive system of administrative law.
102 In Anisminic the House of Lords was required to consider the effect of a provision excluding appeals from the determination of a statutory tribunal, the Foreign Compensation Commission. The Foreign Compensation Act 1950 (UK) 14 Geo 6 c 12 established the Commission and by s 4(4) provided that "the determination by the Commission of any application made to them under this Act shall not be called in question in any court of law." The House held that the subsection did not oust the jurisdiction of the court whose duty it was to ensure that the limits set by the statute on the Commission's determinations were observed. In particular, the House of Lords held that s 4(4) did not exclude a review of a purported determination that was a nullity in the sense that it was liable to be quashed by the Court. This is made clear by the much quoted passage from Lord Reid's speech where he said (at 171):
"It has sometimes been said that it is only where a tribunal acts without jurisdiction that its decision is a nullity. But in such cases the word 'jurisdiction' has been used in a very wide sense, and I have come to the conclusion that it is better not to use the term except in the narrow and original sense of the tribunal being entitled to enter on the inquiry in question. But there are many cases where, although the tribunal had jurisdiction to enter on the inquiry, it has done or failed to do something in the course of the inquiry which is of such a nature that its decision is a nullity. It may have given its decision in bad faith. It may have made a decision which it had no power to make. It may have failed in the course of the inquiry to comply with the requirements of natural justice. It may in perfect good faith have misconstrued the provisions giving it power to act so that it failed to deal with the question remitted to it and decided some question which was not remitted to it. It may have refused to take into account something which it was required to take into account. Or it may have based its decision on some matter which, under the provisions setting it up, it had no right to take into account. I do not intend this list to be exhaustive. But if it decides a question remitted to it for decision without committing any of these errors it is as much entitled to decide that question wrongly as it is to decide it rightly."
Lord Pearce also gave examples of ways in which lack of jurisdiction may arise. He said (at 195):
"There may be an absence of those formalities or things which are conditions precedent to the tribunal having any jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry. Or the tribunal may at the end make an order that it has no jurisdiction to make. Or in the intervening stage, while engaged on a proper inquiry, the tribunal may depart from the rules of natural justice; or it may ask itself the wrong questions; or it may take into account matters which it was not directed to take into account. Thereby it would step outside its jurisdiction. It would turn its inquiry into something not directed by Parliament and fail to make the inquiry which Parliament did direct. Any of these things would cause its purported decision to be a nullity.
…
But if it directs itself to the right inquiry, asking the right questions, they will not intervene merely because it has or may have come to the wrong answer, provided that this is an answer that lies within its jurisdiction."
Lord Wilberforce described jurisdictional error in the following terms (at 210):
"[T]he cases in which a tribunal has been held to have passed outside its proper limits are not limited to those in which it had no power to enter upon its inquiry or its jurisdiction, or has not satisfied a condition precedent. … A tribunal may quite properly validly enter upon its task and in the course of carrying it out may make a decision which is invalid - not merely erroneous. This may be described as 'asking the wrong question' or 'applying the wrong test' - expressions not wholly satisfactory since they do not, in themselves, distinguish between doing something which is not in the tribunal's area and doing something wrong within that area - a crucial distinction which the court has to make."
103 Anisminic had the potential to bring about the effective end of error of law on the face of the record and replace it with an all embracing category of jurisdictional error. The result would then be that bodies that are established, and their powers defined, by law would be required to abide by law. It is true that this would result in something akin to a general right of appeal from decisions of administrative bodies. If the maintenance of the rule of law is seen as the proper foundation for judicial intervention, this could hardly be described as an unsatisfactory result.
104 For a short time the effect of Anisminic was not clear. In Pearlman v Keepers and Governors of Harrow School [1979] QB 56 Lord Denning expressed the view that the consequence of Anisminic was that the distinction between an error of law which affected jurisdiction and one which did not had been discarded. Geoffrey Lane LJ did not agree and his view was adopted by the Privy Council in South East Asia Fire Bricks Sdn Bhd v Non-Metallic Mineral Products Manufacturing Employees Union [1981] AC 363. This was but a short-lived victory for the traditionalists. In In re Racal Communications Ltd [1981] AC 374 Lord Diplock upheld Lord Denning's views and said that any error of law made by an inferior tribunal would result in it asking the wrong question rendering its decision a nullity (at 383). His Lordship asserted the same position in O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237 at 278 not only in relation to administrative tribunals, but also as regards inferior courts. In Reg v Lord President of the Privy Council; Ex parte Page [1993] AC 682 five members of the House were of the unanimous opinion that there was no longer a distinction between errors of law. Lord Browne-Wilkinson who gave the leading judgment said (at 701):
"In my judgment the decision in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission rendered obsolete the distinction between errors of law on the face of the record and other errors of law by extending the doctrine of ultra vires. Thenceforward it was to be taken that Parliament had only conferred the decision-making power on the basis that it was to be exercised on the correct legal basis: a misdirection in law in making the decision therefore rendered the decision ultra vires. Professor Wade considers that the true effect of Anisminic is still in doubt: Administrative Law, 6th ed., pp.299 et seq. But in my judgment the decision of this House in O'Reilly v Mackman establishes the law in the sense that I have stated."
See also Reg v Bedwellty Justices; Ex parte Williams [1997] AC 225 at 233; Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143 at 154. Accordingly the position reached in England is now clear. The historic distinction between error of law on the face of the record and other errors of law has been effectively discarded, certainly in so far as administrative tribunals are concerned and perhaps also in the case of inferior courts, except when it is clear in the legislation establishing the inferior court or tribunal that Parliament intended to oust the jurisdiction of the court.
105 What is the position in Australia? Before the decision in Craig, the High Court had not adopted the English position: see Public Service Union at 141. But in Craig the High Court appears to have accepted Anisminic as explained in the later English cases. In Craig, the respondent, the State of South Australia, sought to review a decision of a district court judge. It argued that an inferior court commits jurisdictional error whenever it addresses the wrong issue or asks itself the wrong question. It relied upon Lord Reid's speech in Anisminic to support its contention. The High Court did not agree. In a joint judgment Brennan CJ and Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ said that Lord Reid's comments were not intended to refer to an inferior court. They accepted that later English cases had extended Anisminic to inferior courts but the justices said (at 179) that: "Lord Reid's comments should not be accepted here as an authoritative statement of what constitutes jurisdictional error by an inferior court for the purposes of certiorari." Nevertheless, after referring to the critical distinction which exists between administrative tribunals and courts of law, the justices went on to say (at 179):
"At least in the absence of a contrary intent in the statute or other instrument which established it, an administrative tribunal lacks authority either to authoritatively determine questions of law or to make an order or decision otherwise than in accordance with the law. That point was made by Lord Diplock in In re Racal Communications Ltd [1981] AC 374 at 383:
'Parliament can, of course, if it so desires, confer upon administrative tribunals or authorities power to decide questions of law as well as questions of fact or of administrative policy; but this requires clear words, for the presumption is that where a decision-making power is conferred on a tribunal or authority that is not a court of law, Parliament did not intend to do so.'
The position is, of course, a fortiori in this country where constitutional limitations arising from the doctrine of the separation of judicial and executive powers may preclude legislative competence to confer judicial power upon an administrative tribunal. If such an administrative tribunal falls into an error of law which causes it to identify a wrong issue, to ask itself a wrong question, to ignore relevant material, to rely on irrelevant material or, at least in some circumstances, to make an erroneous finding or to reach a mistaken conclusion, and the tribunal's exercise or purported exercise of power is thereby affected, it exceeds its authority or powers. Such an error of law is jurisdictional error which will invalidate any order or decision of the tribunal which reflects it."
106 In this passage the High Court is indicating that, absent a clear intention to the contrary, administrative tribunals established by statute do not have "jurisdiction" to break the law. Further, when one is considering the "jurisdiction" of administrative tribunals established by the federal Parliament, being tribunals upon which judicial power cannot be conferred, it is especially unlikely that Parliament intended them to make final determinations on questions of law.
107 The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria in Returned & Services League of Australia (Vic Branch) Inc (Pascoe Vale Sub Branch) v Liquor Licensing Commission [1999] VSCA 37 pointed out that in Craig the High Court had said that the error of law in respect of which certiorari is available is one where "the tribunal's exercise or purported exercise of power is thereby affected". The Court of Appeal described this as the "critical expression" in the passage of the judgment of the High Court that I have set out. No doubt it is. The question is what did the High Court mean by this "critical expression"? In my view an error will relevantly "affect" a tribunal's exercise or purported exercise of power if the erroneous finding forms the basis of the decision or is an element in the processes of reasoning that led to the decision. In other words, the point that the High Court was making is that only those errors of law that cause the tribunal to err in the result will lead to the decision being quashed.
108 My view of what was decided by Anisminic differs in some respects from the opinion of the Full Court in Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (1999) 164 ALR 73. There the Full Court said that the effect of Anisminic was that only "defects in the inquiry process" would amount to jurisdictional error. A reference to "defects in the inquiry process" suggests that a distinction was being drawn between "procedural" deficiencies on the one hand and "substantive" deficiencies on the other. A similar distinction was drawn by Woolf LJ for the purpose of determining what type of administrative decision could be the subject of collateral challenge: see Bugg v Director of Public Prosecutions [1993] QB 473. In Reg v Wicks [1998] AC 92 the distinction was criticised as being impossible or difficult to draw and in Boddington, the House of Lords rejected the distinction. Further, when one has regard to the examples that were given by the Full Court of what it regarded as deficiencies in the decision-making process, the difficulties of characterisation identified in Wicks become apparent. The examples given include bad faith, lack of power, failure to accord natural justice, mistake as to the nature of the tribunal's jurisdiction, failure to take into account a relevant matter, and reliance on extraneous matters. When these instances of error are examined it is clear that only some are deficiencies in process. With respect to those who hold a different view, a distinction between a deficiency in the inquiry process and an erroneous conclusion arrived at in some other way is difficult to maintain. Moreover, Anisminic does not support the existence of the distinction as is shown by reference to later cases.
109 In Reg v Greater Manchester Coroner; Ex parte Tal [1985] QB 67 Robert Goff LJ, delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal, said (at 82):
"Since Anisminic, the requirement that an error of law within the jurisdiction must appear on the face of the record is now obsolete. It follows that today, in principle, inferior courts as well as tribunals are amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under sections 29 and 31 of the Supreme Court Act 1981."
In Bedwellty, after referring to the developments that had taken place concerning the scope of judicial review, most notably that of Anisminic, Lord Cooke said (at 233):
"In Ex parte Page the five members of the Appellate Committee (Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Griffiths, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill and Lord Slynn of Hadley) were unanimous that usually any error of law made by an administrative tribunal or inferior court in reaching its decision can be quashed by certiorari for error of law. There were, however, observations to the effect that as regards an inferior court of law a statutory provision that its decision is to be 'final and conclusive' or the like will confine the remedy to cases of abuse of power, acting outside jurisdiction in the narrow sense, or breach of natural justice."
In Boddington Lord Irvine LC said (at 154):
"But in 1969, the decision of your Lordships House in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission made obsolete the historic distinction between errors of law on the face of the record and other errors of law. It did so by extending the doctrine of ultra vires, so that any misdirection in law would render the relevant decision ultra vires and a nullity: see Regina v Hull University Visitor; Ex parte Page at 701-702 per Lord Browne-Wilkinson (with whom Lord Keith of Kinkel and Lord Griffiths agreed), citing the speech of Lord Diplock in O'Reilly v Mackman at 278. Thus, today, the old distinction between void and voidable acts on which Lord Denning relied in DPP v Head no longer applies. This much is clear from the Anisminic case and these later authorities."
110 Perhaps the problem lies with the adoption of the phrase "defects in the inquiry process". Even if a narrow view of jurisdictional error is taken to be the law in Australia it must cover the case where the jurisdiction of a tribunal depends upon the existence of facts which the tribunal lacks power to decide conclusively. R v Gray; Ex parte Marsh (1985) 157 CLR 351 is an example of a case where such an issue arose. An error made in deciding whether a jurisdictional fact exists will not usually result from a "defect in the inquiry process" if that phrase is to be given its literal meaning. The difficulty is in deciding precisely what the Full Court intended by its choice of words. One thing that is clear is that it did not have in mind the full effect that has been given to Anisminic by the English courts. Speaking for myself, I regard the English position as explained in the later cases not only as correct in law, but required by principle. I would hold that a superior court should interfere with the decision of an administrative tribunal whenever it acts contrary to law. In that event the tribunal will be acting ultra vires unless the statute creating the tribunal provides that the unlawful decision is not to be challenged.
111 There are two bases for holding that the errors made by the Full Bench are jurisdictional errors. The first, and the one that I prefer, is that the errors are jurisdictional in the Anisminic sense. The Full Bench asked itself the wrong questions and in so doing applied the wrong tests, at least in the case of its ruling on the obligation to find facts and the defence of waiver. In the case of the remaining error the Full Bench misdirected itself when it wrongly determined what had been decided by the Commission. Further, on the proper construction of the Workplace Relations Act, the existence of errors on the part of the Commission constituted by a single member was not remitted to the Full Bench to determine conclusively. For example, an erroneous decision as to the proper construction of s 170CG(3) could not be regarded as conclusive. The same is true of an erroneous ruling on the defence of waiver. Can it really be supposed that the Full Bench could determine whether there has been a waiver of bias on a ground that does not conform with common law principles as applied by all other courts and tribunals.
112 The second approach is to apply the traditional view of jurisdictional error and treat the condition imposed by s 170JF(2) as a matter that goes to jurisdiction. On this basis mistaken assertion of the existence of an appealable error enables the resultant decision to be set aside. It is impossible to think that Parliament intended the Full Bench to set aside a decision of the Commission if the Commission had not committed an error. By applying the wrong tests and misconstruing the legislation in deciding whether the Commission had erred, the Full Bench has assumed to exercise powers on appeal although the condition for their exercise has not been satisfied.
113 I would order that a writ of certiorari issue to the Full Bench constituting the Commission removing their decision into this Court and quashing the decision and that a writ of mandamus issue compelling the Full Bench to determine the appeal according to law. In this regard it is necessary to mention that s 75(v) of the Constitution does not empower the High Court to grant certiorari and this application was instituted in the High Court and has been remitted to the Federal Court for determination pursuant to s 44 of the Judiciary Act 1903. However, certiorari may issue when it is ancillary to mandamus or prohibition: Pitfield v Franki (1970) 123 CLR 448; R v Cook; Ex parte Twigg (1980) 147 CLR 15; R v Ross-Jones; Ex parte Green (1984) 156 CLR 185.