Ryan v New South Wales Department of Education and Training [2007] NSWIRComm 224 | Case summary

(1) An appeal from a decision of the Appeal Panel may be made to the Industrial Relations Commission in Court Session (the Commission), but only by leave of the Commission. (2) An application for leave to appeal under this section must be made within 6 months after the appellant is notified of the Appeal Panel's determination or within such further period as the Commission allows. (3) In dealing with the appeal, the Commission: (a) may exercise any function that could have been exercised by the Appeal Panel in making the determination the subject of the appeal, and (b) is not bound by the rules of evidence, but may inform itself in any manner it thinks fit. (4) The decision of the Commission is final and is to be given effect to as if it were the decision of the person or body in respect of whose decision, determination, action or failure to act the appeal has been made. 3 Mr Ryan, who appeared in person, is illiterate. He is 51 years of age. Background 4 On 27 February 2006, Mr Ryan lodged an application for leave to appeal and appeal against a decision of the Vocational Education and Training Appeal Panel given on 14 February 2005. In Ryan v NSW Department of Education and Training [2006] NSWIRComm 178, I made the following orders at [92]: 1. Leave to appeal is granted. 2. The appeal is upheld. 3. I direct the Vocational Education and Training Appeal Panel to reconsider Mr Ryan's appeal and whether a trade test is appropriate in the circumstances of this matter. 4. Subject to making an appropriate application, Mr Ryan is to be issued with a Certificate II Servicing Heavy Vehicles. 5. No order as to costs. 5 I also observed at [88]: Any further testing should take place at a TAFE other than Kurri Kurri. As an alternative, an assessor from the Institute of Mechanical Engineers could be requested to assess Mr Ryan. Mr Ryan should be provided with literacy support during such a test. 6 The appellant's employment history is set out at [47] of my earlier judgment and I do not repeat it here except to observe that the appellant has been conducting his own motor mechanic business for the past four years. Grounds of Appeal 7 The grounds of appeal are as follows: I feel the decision should be overturned, because I wasn't tested fairly and I wasn't sent to another TAFE, and I have been doing the job for 4 years on my own without any complaints. I also feel that Vocational Training are not giving me a fair go and are making it very difficult for me because I don't fit into their criteria. Yes I do have a disability/illiterate and I am capable of doing the job(.) I just need them to give me a go, surely that can't be too hard of (sic) them. The Appellant's Evidence 8 Mr Ryan tendered a statutory declaration of Christopher Colin Sheehy, which was received without objection although Mr Sheehy was not available for cross-examination due to undergoing radiotherapy treatment. Mr Sheehy stated that he accompanied Mr Ryan when he undertook the trade test at Kurri Kurri on 12 February 2007, as his support person. He stated that at no time was any assistance or support provided to Mr Ryan. Mr Sheehy deposed that Mr Maytom who was asked by the respondent to attend the trade test and to observe the testing process and support the appellant stood some distance away from the appellant when he was undertaking the test and could not have heard the exchanges between the appellant and Mr Ostermann, who was conducting the test. In Mr Sheehy's opinion, Mr Ryan was treated unfairly and discriminated against because of his illiteracy. 9 Mr Ryan gave evidence stating that upon arriving for the trade test he was introduced the examiner, Mr Ostermann and two support persons (Mr S G Rippon and Mr T Maytom). Mr Ryan recalled Mr Ostermann telling him that "because he had to get it right, he had to look up a few of the questions himself". Mr Ryan described being examined on the working of a carburettor and how clutches work. He observed that he received a failure for his answers to these questions. He stated that the support persons were standing at a distance away from him that precluded them from hearing what he was saying. 10 Mr Ryan stated that he was given no explanation as to why the test had been cancelled at Wetherill Park and transferred to Kurri Kurri. However, he did acknowledge that he had indicated to the respondent that he wanted to get the trade test done quickly. He denied saying that he did not wish to travel to Wetherill Park. 11 Mr Ryan stated that he did not work on automatic transmissions or differentials in vehicles, contracting that work out, or other specialist jobs, such as working on motors and fuel injectors. The work that Mr Ryan normally carries out includes "replacing heads, cylinders, pistons, crankshafts, axles, brakes and steering". 12 Mr Ryan stated he worked as a bus driver and mechanic's offsider/assistant for seven and a half years with Leslie's Bus Service before opening his own business. He stated he did 90 per cent of the work on his own. This included replacing gearboxes, clutches, fuel injectors and fuel pumps in buses when they broke down on the road. However, he admitted that he had received no formal training as a motor mechanic. 13 During cross-examination, Mr Ryan acknowledged that support and assistance was now available at TAFE for persons who were illiterate. Mr Ryan further acknowledged that on 25 July 2006, at the Appeal Panel hearing, he had agreed that he would undertake a trade test conducted at Kurri Kurri TAFE because he wanted to get the test completed quickly. Mr Ryan agreed that he was informed by letter dated 8 August 2006 that the trade test would be conducted at Kurri Kurri and that he did not express any dissatisfaction about that location until 2 October 2006. This was despite being in regular contact with Ms A Ricketts, a Project Officer attached to the Vocational Training Tribunal Unit of the New South Wales Department of Education and Training. 14 Mr Ryan said he agreed with the Appeal Panel's decision that it was necessary for him to again sit a trade test. He also accepted that the Appeal Panel informed him firstly that they could not issue a certificate to automatic vehicle servicing without Mr Ryan enrolling in an appropriate qualification course at TAFE and secondly how he could get some credit for the work that he had done. 15 Mr Ryan rejected the suggestion that Mr Ostermann tried to support and assist him during the trade test, contending that his assistance was not to the extent where he understood what he was saying. He agreed that Mr Ostermann had endeavoured to organise pre-test discussions with him, but that he was too busy to attend those discussions and a copy of the trade test was forwarded by Mr Ostermann to him. 16 Mr Ryan accepted that Mr Ostermann gave him the opportunity to expand on answers that he had given during the test and provided on at least one occasion assistance in respect of re-wording a question. Mr Ostermann agreed that when Mr Ryan was having difficulty understanding a question, he checked the terminology. Mr Ryan's evidence was that Mr Ostermann was after textbook answers, although he acknowledged that these were his words, not Mr Ostermann. Mr Ryan accepted that the examination had to be stopped on two occasions because there were concerns with the way he was using the equipment. 17 Mr Ryan accepted that he did not complete the trade test and that he walked out after completing five out of nine sections. The sections that Mr Ryan was not examined on included steering systems, suspension systems, braking systems and final drive operation diagnosis. Mr Ryan acknowledged that he did not ask Mr Maytom any questions during the test, although he accepted that he provided him with assistance on at least one occasion. His evidence was that he did not know that he could ask Mr Maytom questions. He agreed that there was no reading or writing required during the trade test. Mr Ryan acknowledged that he had not made an application for the Certificate II Servicing Heavy Vehicles, agreeing that that was his choice. The Respondent's Evidence 18 Dr M McFadden of counsel, who appeared for the respondent, read affidavits of the following persons: Ms Anne Ricketts, a Project Officer, Vocational Training Tribunal Unit; Mr Mark Ostermann, Head Teacher of Heavy Vehicles and Plant Mechanics, Hunter Institute of TAFE, Kurri Kurri Campus; Mr Stanley Rippon, Team Leader, Training Services, New South Wales Department of Education and Training; Mr Todd Maytom, Part-time Safety Consultant at Safety and Forensic Engineering Pty Ltd. Each witness was required for cross-examination. 19 Ms Ricketts stated that in accordance with order 3 of the orders made by me on 26 May 2006, the Appeal Panel convened to reconsider the appellant's appeal on 25 July 2006, specifically as to whether a trade test was appropriate in the circumstances of the matter. In consultation with the appellant, the Appeal Panel determined that a further trade test of Automotive (Heavy Vehicle Mechanical) Road Transport was appropriate and stood over the appellant's appeal pending the outcome of that trade test. 20 Trade tests are administered by TAFE New South Wales. Ms Ricketts stated that on 5 September 2006, she caused a request to be forwarded to the TAFE Teaching and Learning Support Services ("TTLSS") for the conduct of a trade test for Mr Ryan. This request included an observation that Mr Ryan would like to do the test at the Kurri Kurri Campus. 21 On 14 September 2006, the TTLSS forwarded a trade test request to the Wetherill Park Campus. Their records were unable to explain why this had occurred. On 20 September 2007, Mr Ryan was advised that the trade test at Wetherill Park had been cancelled. Ms Ricketts was unaware that the trade test had initially been set down for the Wetherill Park Campus. On 3 October 2006, Mr Ryan contacted Ms Ricketts regarding the cancellation of the trade test and expressed his concern that he was required to sit the trade test within 90 days of the determination of the Appeal Panel. Arrangements were made for the trade test to take place on either 8 November 2006 or 17 November 2006, however, Mr Ryan advised that he was unavailable on those days. The trade test finally took place on 12 February 2007 at Kurri Kurri TAFE. 22 The Appeal Panel also advised the appellant that it did not have the power to issue qualifications such as the certificate II, Automotive Vehicle Servicing (Heavy Vehicle) and provided advice to the appellant on enrolment procedures to assist in obtaining that qualification. Ms Ricketts gave evidence that she was present during the Appeal Panel hearing on 25 July 2006, when Mr Ryan asked that any further trade test be conducted at the TAFE, Kurri Kurri Campus, because that Campus was more convenient for him and much easier for him to attend. The Appeal Panel agreed to this request. 23 Ms Ricketts stated that the Appeal Panel wanted to comply with the direction made by the Commission that any testing occur at a TAFE other than Kurri Kurri, but agreed to the appellant's request. 24 Mr Mark Ostermann is employed as a Teacher at the TAFE, Kurri Kurri Campus. His duties include teaching trade apprentices enrolled in heavy vehicle road transport and mobile equipment. 25 Mr Ostermann stated that a student may complete two qualifications from the Automotive Industry Retail, Service and Repair Training Package to achieve trade qualifications for the repair and servicing of road vehicles: certificate III in Automotive (Mechanical - Heavy Vehicle Road Transport) and certificate III in Automotive (Mechanical - Light Vehicle). These qualifications are usually completed through an apprenticeship which takes approximately four years. To complete the apprenticeship, the apprentice is required to attend TAFE New South Wales 36 days per year, either one day per week, or seven separate weeks of five days duration. The apprentice is also required to work at a licensed workshop with a licensed qualified tradesperson for the remainder of the four years of the apprenticeship to obtain the necessary practical experience. A student is required to complete the relevant nationally endorsed competencies specified in the Training Package. 26 Mr Ostermann conducted a trade test for Mr Ryan on 12 February 2007. The usual procedure for a trade test is for an applicant to attend a preliminary interview approximately one month prior to the test. The preliminary interview takes approximately one hour. At the interview, an applicant is given a list of topics/areas and is shown around the workshop to enable him/her to become familiar with the products and machinery used for the trade test. This also gives an applicant sufficient time prior to the trade test to prepare responses on the topics/areas that the test covers. 27 Mr Ostermann stated that on 2 February 2007, he contacted Mr Ryan to offer a pre-test discussion. Mr Ryan stated he was too busy to attend such a discussion. 28 On 5 February 2007, Mr Ostermann forwarded Mr Ryan a copy of the trade test which is designed and developed by the Manufacturing, Engineering, Construction and Transport Curriculum Centre ("MECAT") and used in all TAFE, New South Wales Colleges. The test is made up of oral and practical components and depending on the applicant's level of skill, takes approximately three hours to complete. 29 Mr Ostermann stated he explained to Mr Ryan in the presence of Mr Rippon, Mr Maytom and Mr Sheehy, how the trade test would be conducted. There was no writing required of Mr Ryan during the test. The test required oral answers and practical demonstrations of skill. The test commenced at 9.07 am and proceeded until 12.13 pm when, after completing five of the nine assessment criteria, Mr Ryan said "what's the point in continuing, you are not going to pass me anyway". 30 Mr Ostermann stated that he asked Mr Ryan to cease performing practical tasks on two occasions, due to the risk of injury to himself and damage to the equipment by not doing the task correctly. Mr Rippon and Mr Maytom were informed of this direction. Mr Ostermann set out the details surrounding why there was a potential for injury, however, it is unnecessary to detail those here. 31 Mr Ostermann stated that at no time before, during or after the trade test, had he made any reference to requiring Mr Ryan to provide his answers, word for word, from the textbook. Mr Ostermann's evidence was that after the test was stopped, Mr Ryan said "you expect me to respond word for word from the textbook". Mr Ostermann replied "Mr Ryan you only needed to give responses which were appropriate to demonstrate sufficient knowledge and skill for the trade qualification". 32 Mr Ostermann attached Mr Ryan's test results to his affidavit which showed that he did not have sufficient knowledge and skills, to a tradesman's standard, which would allow an exemption to be granted to Mr Ryan for competencies in the Heavy Vehicle Trade Course. Mr Ostermann also included his test comments in respect of each of the areas examined, concluding "having worked in [the Automotive Transport Vehicle Industry] for over 20 years, I have never experienced a person so unconsciously incompetent of their own ability." 33 Mr Ostermann stated that in preparation for the test, he made notes the night before of the answers to the questions contained in the nine areas that were to be tested so as to have a cross check for the answers. Mr Ostermann explained the purpose of this document was to ensure that because there were other people present overseeing the testing that he actually had a list of acceptable generic answers that could be measured against the appellant's answers. He obtained these answers through his 20 years experience as a mechanic and through a generic textbook that he has used at TAFE. Mr Ostermann placed ticks or crosses on this document in respect of answers given by Mr Ryan and comments in red ink where Mr Ryan grossly misquoted an answer. This was done so that Mr Ostermann, at the conclusion of the test, could refer back to the answers given by Mr Ryan. This document was tendered during the hearing. 34 Mr Ostermann observed that, in his opinion, Mr Ryan was someone who had no formal training or informal training on the criteria that were tested. Mr Ostermann stated that the support persons were unable to assist Mr Ryan because of his skill level. Mr Ostermann stated that the TAFE network is set up to accept recommendations and competency that enable recognition of prior learning. Both of these options could have been utilised by Mr Ryan in preparation for the trade test. In Mr Ostermann's view, Mr Ryan should give consideration to enrolling in the course that deals with Heavy Vehicle Road Registered Vehicle Program and draw upon the TAFE network and its tutorial support to complete the course. Mr Ryan could have his prior learning and current competencies assessed and recognised up to certain levels. 35 Mr Maytom attended the Practical Trade Test as an independent support person to the appellant. Mr Maytom stated that, in his experience, the questions asked by Mr Ostermann did not use technology beyond the level required for Mr Ryan to understand any question. He heard Mr Ostermann repeat many questions to Mr Ryan in order to provide him with a further opportunity to consider his answer. Mr Maytom stated that at different stages of the test, he heard Mr Ostermann provide prompts, which he understood to be designed to help Mr Ryan understand the question. His evidence was that the questioning employed by Mr Ostermann was clear and gave Mr Ryan every opportunity to express what he knew and could do in each of the areas that were tested. 36 At the conclusion of each section of the trade test Mr Maytom heard Mr Ostermann explain the responses that were required for Mr Ryan to be deemed competent in the particular section being tested. Mr Maytom said Mr Ryan did not ask him any questions during the test. He stated that, in his view, Mr Ryan was provided with appropriate assistance during the trade test and denied the allegation that he did not help him. Mr Maytom stated that Mr Ostermann was extremely patient, conducting himself in a very professional manner. 37 Mr Maytom stated that during the testing, Mr Ryan made some very fundamental and dangerous mistakes. He was very unfamiliar with basic measuring equipment and had no knowledge of automatic transmissions, and the basic parts of a torque converter. Mr Maytom expressed the view that he would have a concern for public safety if Mr Ryan, as a result of the trade test, were awarded a Craft Certificate. 38 Mr Rippon also attended the trade test in the role of a support person to the appellant to ensure that he was provided with assistance during the administration of the trade test so that the test was fair. Mr Rippon stated that he had observed a large number of trade tests prior to that of Mr Ryan's. He stated that he was able to observe all of the testing and able to hear what was said by the Assessor, Mr Ostermann and Mr Ryan. He said on one occasion during the first part of the assessment, which was on trade tools, he approached the Assessor on the request of the appellant's representative to ensure the Assessor was aware that the appellant had difficulty in reading and writing and may not understand the terminology being used. 39 Mr Rippon stated that at the completion of each assessment stage, he heard the Assessor, Mr Ostermann, give the appellant feedback on his answers for the assessment stage and also advise him of the correct answers. He also heard Mr Ostermann advise the appellant, at the end of each assessment stage, that he was "not yet competent". In Mr Rippon's view, given his previous experience with trade tests, the appellant was given reasonable and appropriate assistance during the test. Mr Rippon said that Mr Ryan had opportunities to ask questions and seek guidance during the test and he heard the Assessor rephrase certain questions at the request of the appellant. He said Mr Ostermann also sought assistance from the industry representative to rephrase questions so that Mr Ryan could be further assisted. Mr Rippon stated that Mr Ryan terminated the trade test, stating "this is a waste of time, you're not going to pass me on anything. I am wasting my time and money. There's no point going any further." This occurred approximately three hours into the test. 40 Mr Rippon denied any suggestion that he did not help Mr Ryan. He stated that the Assessor went to large lengths to put the appellant at ease as he appeared to be nervous. He offered him breaks whenever he thought it appropriate. Mr Rippon further stated that Mr Ostermann spent approximately 20 minutes to half an hour speaking to Mr Ryan about the alternatives that he could consider to address the deficiencies in his knowledge. Mr Rippon explained that Mr Ryan had not failed any of the competencies, but had been marked "not yet competent" as Mr Ryan was unable to meet the minimum industry standards it was therefore suggested that Mr Ryan give consideration to enrolling in a training course with an organisation to ensure competencies reached the appropriate standard. Leave to Appeal 41 I have earlier referred to the grounds of appeal. Mr Ryan did not make any submissions in respect of the question of leave to appeal. Essentially, Mr Ryan contends that he was unfairly tested by Mr Ostermann, a teacher employed at the Hunter Institute of TAFE, Kurri Kurri Campus. 42 In Topman v State Rail Authority of New South Wales [2004] NSWIRComm 272, I said at [19]: The matter proceeded before me as an appeal by way of re-hearing. A consideration of the following provisions point in favour of the appeal being an appeal by way of re-hearing. Firstly, the Court is empowered to exercise any "function" that could have been exercised by the Appeal Panel: s 55(3)(a). Secondly, the Court "is not bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself in any matter it thinks fit": s 55(3)(b). Thirdly, an appeal to the "Appeal Panel is to be dealt with by way of a new hearing and fresh evidence or fresh information may be given on appeal": s 54(2). Fourthly, the proceedings before the Tribunal and the Appeal Panel were conducted in an informal manner with no affidavits being filed and no exhibits being formally tendered and no transcript being taken of the proceedings.

43 The matter proceeded before me as an appeal by way of rehearing with the question of leave to appeal and the appeal being heard together. The High Court in Adam P. Brown Male Fashions Pty. Ltd. v Phillip Morris Inc. (1981) 148 CLR 170 at 177 observed that it is both unnecessary and unwise to lay down rigid and exhaustive criteria in relation to the granting or otherwise of leave to appeal. 44 Although it was the respondent's submission that the appellant's grounds of appeal lacked merit and that leave to appeal should not be granted, I propose to grant leave to appeal as this matter raises for consideration whether orders made by the Court in the earlier proceedings were given effect. Consideration 45 The essence of the appellant's appeal is that he was not tested fairly by Mr Ostermann when he undertook the heavy vehicle trade test at Kurri Kurri TAFE on 25 July 2006, because first the trade test was undertaken at the Kurri Kurri TAFE; secondly, the assessor said that the appellant's answers had to be word for word from the textbook in order to pass the test; thirdly, the support persons present did not assist the appellant during the test; fourthly, the appellant has been undertaking the work of a heavy vehicle mechanic in his own business for the last four years without complaint and fifthly, the appellant has completed all jobs to the satisfaction of his customers. 46 Turning to the first ground of appeal, the evidence of Ms Ricketts is that at the reconvened appeal hearing on 25 July 2006, Mr Ryan requested that the trade test be conducted at Kurri Kurri. Mr Ryan did not directly challenge this evidence, agreeing in cross-examination that he did agree to undertake the test at Kurri Kurri. Nor did he challenge Ms Ricketts' evidence that an administrative error led to the booking of the test at Wetherill Park. Prior to the booking of the trade test, Mr Ryan was in regular contact with Ms Ricketts. During the period between the booking and the cancellation of the trade test at Wetherill Park (6 September 2006 to 6 October 2006), there was no contact between Mr Ryan and Ms Ricketts after he was informed of the cancellation of the trade test at Wetherill Park (on 20 September 2006). In these circumstances, it does not seem to me that the cancellation of the trade test at Wetherill Park gives rise to a relevant ground of unfairness. Furthermore, had it been so, I would have expected that Mr Sheehy, Mr Ryan's support person, would have referred to it in his statutory declaration. I therefore accept, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Ryan requested that the trade test be conducted at Kurri Kurri and that therefore the place of testing cannot constitute a relevant ground of unfairness. 47 In relation to the second and third grounds, the evidence discloses that Mr Ryan chose not to complete the trade test on 12 February 2007, completing parts one to five, out of a possible nine parts. In these circumstances, this ground cannot constitute unfairness as the appellant has chosen not to complete the test. Furthermore, I find, on the balance of probabilities that the appellant was fairly tested by the assessor on those parts of the test, which he completed; that the support persons clearly indicated the role they would play during testing and that Mr Rippon and Mr Maytom undertook those roles appropriately. 48 The evidence discloses that Mr Ostermann prepared a datasheet the night before the test which set out a range of possible answers to the questions that were to be asked. This was designed to ensure, in my view, objectivity and that Mr Ostermann was fully prepared to conduct the trade test in a fair and objective manner. I accept the evidence of Mr Ostermann, Mr Maytom and Mr Rippon that Mr Ostermann did not inform Mr Ryan that he was required to give textbook answers to the questions he was asked. Both Mr Rippon and Mr Maytom's evidence was that the trade test was conducted with appropriate assistance being provided by Mr Maytom and Mr Rippon and that Mr Ostermann gave Mr Ryan every opportunity to demonstrate what he knew. I do not find that there was any unfairness in the way the test was conducted. Both Mr Maytom and Mr Rippon gave examples of assistance that they provided to Mr Ryan and described the process as a fair process. 49 In respect of the final two grounds of appeal, these grounds do not go to the unfairness of the testing of Mr Ryan. Furthermore, the appellant had an opportunity to file and serve evidence in this matter and apart from the evidence of Mr Sheehy, which did not comment on Mr Ryan's work, no evidence was called by Mr Ryan in support of these grounds. The onus for demonstrating unfairness, on the balance of probabilities, rests upon the appellant, and in my view, the appellant has not discharged this onus. Throughout the trade test, the appellant was assessed as "not yet competent". The appellant was twice stopped because of the risk of personal injury whilst he undertook the trade test. Clearly, the appellant demonstrated insufficient knowledge to be working on vehicles that have mass tonnage from five to 70 tonne road going. Mr Ostermann's evidence was that he has a genuine safety concern for the public where the appellant is working on vehicles that are potentially a risk to the public if a mechanical breakdown occurs and in circumstances where the appellant has no formal underpinning training to be undertaking such work. 50 I accept that the evidence discloses that at the Appeal Panel hearing on 25 July 2006, the Appeal Panel considered new representations from the appellant and discussed the option of a workplace assessment with him. In deciding against a workplace assessment, the Appeal Panel determined that a trade test was appropriate in all the circumstances with the results of the trade test to be considered in light of additional representations by Mr Ryan. 51 On 2 March 2007, the Appeal Panel reconvened to consider the trade test results and any further representations by the appellant. The Appeal Panel confirmed that the appellant had not undertaken any formal training as a motor mechanic and that the appellant could not produce any work reference from previous employers. The appellant was given a further opportunity to explain the work he carries out as a motor mechanic. After considering these matters, the Appeal Panel determined to dismiss the appellant's appeal on the basis that the appellant could not demonstrate that he had the full range of skills required to pursue the trade of Automotive (Heavy Vehicle Mechanical) Road Transport mechanic. 52 The Appeal Panel also advised the appellant that it did not have the power to issue qualifications such as a Certificate II, Automotive Vehicle Servicing (Heavy Vehicle) and discussed with the appellant enrolment procedures at TAFE for the purpose of having assessed his relevant competencies such that credit could be provided within the context of a course enrolment for a Certificate II. I note in passing, this program is designed to enable an applicant to undertake appropriate training and acquire knowledge so as to enable an applicant to obtain the certificate and the qualifications he/she desires. I would encourage the appellant to avail himself of this program. 53 The overriding duty of the Vocational Educational system, through TAFE and the Appeal Panel, is to provide trained and competent tradespersons and to ensure public safety and consumer protection. 54 I find, for the reasons given, that the appellant has failed to demonstrate any relevant unfairness by the Appeal Panel. As a result, distressing as the position of the appellant certainly is, his appeal must be dismissed. ORDERS 55 I make the following orders: 1. Leave to appeal is granted. 2. The appeal is dismissed.

Ryan v New South Wales Department of Education and Training

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (12 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (3)