The following paper will examine the elements of procedural fairness apparent in tribunals and compare this to that of the court system, ultimately coming to a tentative conclusion on the efficacy of each. A broad spectrum of academic literature, case law and legislation has been considered to evaluate the role that tribunals have in the Australian legal system.
In light of Kerr J’s remark (above), find and critically analyse a case which considers issues of procedural fairness in a tribunal hearing.
The case of Ashmore v Commissioner for Superannuation primarily concerned the decisions to not recognise late election and to not grant an extension of time relating to the preservation of the applicant’s superannuation benefit. At the initial hearing in which the applicant (Carolyn Ashmore) gave oral evidence, only one senior member was present, contrary to the stipulations of the Superannuation Act that the Tribunal be constituted of three members, one of whom is an eligible employee or pensioner. The hearing was then reconstituted with three members, and a transcript of the applicant’s oral evidence was used to ascertain her credibility. Ultimately the Tribunal formed a negative opinion of the applicant’s evidence, leading them to rule against her. By relying on a transcript of Ashmore’s evidence, it was determined by Justice Moore that the other two tribunal members could have been influenced, albeit unintentionally, by the negative bias from the senior member present at the initial hearing. In response to the proposal to have a hearing with reliance on the transcript, the applicant stated she was aware that two of the reconstituted tribunal members would not have had the benefit of seeing her give evidence, and offered to answer any further questions should they arise. Justice Moore concluded that although the applicant agreed to the transcript being used, her