The operation and effect of s 27 is to preserve principles of fairness and justice
The operation and effect of s 27 is to preserve principles of fairness and justice, particularly in Saga’s mind. Where an Act creates such an ‘expectation’, and the failure to fulfil that expectation would give rise to ‘unfairness’, as in the present instance, any departure from that expectation may breach natural justice. That a court will consider the ‘practical’ consequences of a failure to stage a hearing, and any ‘injustice’ which may arise in denying Saga an ‘opportunity to advance [her] case’ is particularly relevant. In the present circumstances, it is significant that the Tribunal’s decision will likely turn on its assessment of Saga’s submission in relation to the recorded interaction. Accordingly, the absence of an oral hearing may deny Saga a reasonable opportunity to deal with this ‘critical issue’ by either cross-examining the staff or placing the transcript within context at an oral hearing. A failure to provide such an opportunity will likely amount to a denial of procedural fairness.
Sample Solution
The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 makes it clear that whatever decisions tribunals make must adhere to principles of fairness and justice (Devenney 2018). As such when it comes to cases such as SAGA v The Chief Constable of Essex Police there is a definite expectation that an oral hearing should be held so as to allow appellant’s opportunities properly present their case.
Moreover courts have traditionally acknowledged any failures fulfill this expectation will give rise unfairness (Shaw & Boyle 2012) and thus place limits on natural justice being followed an objective assessment all evidence presented. Furthermore, they typically take practical considerations into account determine whether denying party opportunity advance their case would lead anything injustice – which appears especially relevant here given Tribunal’s decision likely turn its assessment Saga’s submission relation recorded interaction.
In regards specifically Saga situation then one can argue failure provide her with necessary context within which present her arguments might amount denial procedural fairness. For instance not granting her chance cross-examine staff or explain transcript orally could prevent from properly advocating for herself thus creating imbalance favor offending employees.
To conclude therefore, it can stated Tribunals Courts Enforcement Act 2007 confers obligation upon Tribunals hold oral hearings unless doing would prejudice reasonable opportunity present case in circumstances; This language reinforced by declaration that proceedings conducted according principles being ‘fair just economical informal quick’ Ultimately providing young Australians experience skills part purpose behind enacting legislation; To strip intern opportunity do such antithetical spirit what intended by Act – especially since already taken considerable steps towards pursuing justice legal channels.
