Unless the Act or other regulations under which a person is employed expressly, or by implication, forbids the application of what are called the rules of natural justice, the courts will infer that the Parliament intended those rules to be observed and, if in some action (such as dismissal) they are not observed, the action is of no effect. In other words, unless the Act or rules sufficiently indicate to the contrary, a statutory power to make a decision adversely affecting the rights, property or legitimate expectations of a person must be exercised in accordance with the rules of natural justice, and a decision to terminate employment is a decision to which those principles will apply, see complaints against government.

What constitutes the observance of natural justice in all cases cannot be simply stated. The law requires fairness from a person exercising an administrative power. This is not something that can be set down in anticipation or in a fixed body of rules, as what is fair in any given situation depends on the circumstances. The courts have held that the principles of natural justice are more strongly implied when the decision might adversely affect the person's reputation and that, if the rules and standards of natural justice have not been observed, it is irrelevant to inquire whether the decision reached was a correct one as the decision, being tainted by the failure to observe the proper procedures, is void.

The courts have held that the minimum requirements for natural justice in the case of termination of employment must include:

The courts have also held that a person who is employed on probation is entitled to be heard before a decision not to confirm the employment is made on grounds that relate to the person's work performance.