21 June 2004
Welcome to the June edition of Clayton Utz Government Insights, in which we'll ask if Government decisions outsourced to private bodies are susceptible to judicial review, and whether the High Court's decision in NEAT Trading answers that question.
We'll also look at the latest in when the Trade Practices Act can apply to Government and its contractors, some misconceptions about the dismissal at pleasure principle, and what happens when public officials act outside their powers.
By Joanne Daniels.
The extent to which the Government and its contractors are subject to the provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 has been clarified in two recent Federal Court cases, says Jo Daniels.
By Robert Cook.
A recent case on the dismissal at pleasure principle shows that there are still misconceptions about its application, and when procedural fairness is required at termination, as Robert Cook explains.
By Bill Lane.
Are Government decisions outsourced to private bodies susceptible to judicial review? Bill Lane looks at the effect of the High Court decision in NEAT Trading.
By John Carroll.
John Carroll examines the point that if a NSW claim of misfeasance in public office goes ahead, grey areas of the tort could be clarified.
Sally has provided advice to all levels of public sector bodies, from Commonwealth and State departments to statutory authorities and local councils.
Bill is one of Australia's leading experts in public law and is currently the Clayton Utz Professor of Public Law in the Queensland University of Technology Law School.
