SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND"

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: No 5582 of 2013 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Australian Society of Ophthalmologists & Anor v Optometry Board of Australia [2013] QSC 350 AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY OF OPHTHALMOLOGISTS (first applicant) THE ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND COLLEGE OF OPHTHALMOLOGISTS ACN (second applicant) v OPTOMETRY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA (respondent) Trial Division Application Supreme Court at Brisbane DELIVERED ON: 19 December 2013 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 30 August 2013 JUDGE: Douglas J ORDER: The application by the respondent filed 26 August 2013 is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDICIAL REVIEW STANDING TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS GENERALLY where the second applicant has had an historical role in setting standards of patient care in ophthalmology where the first applicant represents the medico-political interests of ophthalmologists in Australia where the applicants seek to challenge instruments said to be made under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law where the challenge is based on the changes being purportedly outside the scope of the power of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law where the respondent alleges the applicants have no standing to bring the claim where the basis for the respondent s allegation is that the applicants have no special interest in the subject matter beyond that of any other member of the public whether the applicants have a special interest in the subject matter whether the applicants have standing whether the application should be dismissed

2 2 HEALTH LAW ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM APPLICATION OF LEGISLATION GENERALLY where the second applicant has had an historical role in setting standards of patient care in ophthalmology where the first applicant represents the medico-political interests of ophthalmologists in Australia where the applicants seek to challenge instruments said to be made under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law where the challenge is based on the changes being purportedly outside the scope of the power of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law where the respondent alleges the applicants have no standing to bring the claim where the basis for the respondent s allegation is that the applicants have no special interest in the subject matter beyond that of any other member of the public whether the applicants have a special interest in the subject matter whether the applicants have standing whether the application should be dismissed Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld) Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) Alliance to Save Hinchinbrook Inc v Cook [2007] 1 Qd R 102; [2006] QSC 84, cited Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v the Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493; [1980] HCA 53, cited Bateman s Bay Local Aboriginal Land Council v The Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund Pty Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 247; [1998] HCA 49, followed Brisbane Airport Corporation Ltd v Wright [2002] FCA 359, cited Central Queensland Speleological Soc Inc v Central Queensland Cement Pty Ltd (No 1) [1989] 2 Qd R 512, cited Davis v Commonwealth of Australia (1986) 68 ALR 18; (1986) 61 ALJR 32; [1986] HCA 66, considered General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69, cited Hussein v Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 90 ALD 285; [2006] FCA 286, cited Inland Revenue Commissioners v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, cited Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Australian Lock Co Pty Ltd (2005) 216 ALR 652; [2005] FCA 203, cited North Queensland Conservation Council Inc v Executive Director, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service [2000] QSC 172, considered Onesteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd v Whyalla Red Dust Action Group Inc [2006] SASC 114, cited Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd (1981) 149 CLR 27; [1981]

3 3 HCA 50, followed Right to Life Association (NSW) Inc v Secretary, Department of Human Services and Health (1995) 56 FCR 50; [1995] FCA 1060, cited Save Bell Park Group v Kennedy [2002] QSC 174, cited Save the Ridge Inc v Australian Capital Territory (2004) 182 FLR 155; [2004] ATCSC 13, cited COUNSEL: SOLICITORS: K A Mellifont QC with A D Scott for the applicants T Sullivan QC with J Fitzgerald for the respondents Russo Lawyers for the applicants King + Wood Mallesons for the respondents [1] The applicants, Australian Society of Ophthalmologists ( the Society ) and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists ( the College ), are, respectively, an incorporated association and a company limited by guarantee whose members are ophthalmologists. The Society represents the medico-political interests of that branch of the medical profession while the College is responsible for determining standards of care of its members in the practice of ophthalmology. [2] They wish to challenge instruments said to be made under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law ( the National Law ) as enacted by the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld) as being outside the scope of the powers in the National Law under which those instruments were purportedly made and therefore of no force or legal effect. The effect of the instruments is said to be to permit optometrists to prescribe anti-glaucoma medication for the treatment of patients, which would previously have been able to be prescribed only by an ophthalmologist who would have been responsible for the patients treatment. [3] The applicants have delivered amended points of claim relevant to their arguments which include allegations of the facts said to establish their standing to bring the application. The respondent seeks to strike out the amended points of claim and the originating application as not disclosing a reasonable cause of action because of the applicants alleged lack of standing. In those circumstances it is incumbent on the respondent to show that the applicants case on standing is so obviously untenable that it cannot succeed. 1 [4] My conclusion is that the applicants have shown that they have standing to bring the application with the result that the respondent s application should be dismissed. The pleading on standing [5] The applicants pleaded case in respect of their standing is set out in their amended points of claim as follows: 49. The membership of the First Applicant includes 524 practising ophthalmologists who are also members of the Second Applicant. 50. The membership of the Second Applicant includes 788 practising ophthalmologists. 1 See General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125,

4 4 51. The Code of Conduct of the Second Applicant requires its members to treat the interests of their patients as paramount. 52. The Second Applicant requires its members to enter an oath in which they must swear or affirm that patients are their first concern. 53. The Code of Conduct of the Second Applicant requires its members to:...have a responsibility to promote public awareness of eye care issues and to advocate for improvements in the health care system for the benefit of patients [and] Individually and collectively.., engage with government, industry- and the public to promote health and safety [and] recognise a responsibility to seek to alter those laws and regulations that do not serve the best interests of their patients. 54. The First Applicant's object is to represent the medico-political interests of ophthalmologists. 55. Within the First Applicant's object is to carry out the responsibility of its members under the provisions of the Second Applicant's Code of Conduct quoted at paragraph 53 above. 56. Ophthalmology is a specialty of the profession of medicine recognised: a) under section 13 of the National Law; and b) by the Commonwealth Minister for Health and Ageing under the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth). 57. Ophthalmology is the specialty of medicine concerned with the diagnosis and management of disorders of the eye and visual system. 58. The diagnosis and treatment of glaucoma is within the specialty of ophthalmology. 59. The patients of the members of the First Applicant include those patients who are treated by them pursuant to the "shared-care framework" described in paragraph 9 above. 60. The "shared-care framework" enables the members of the First Applicant to ensure that any treatment of patients by optometrists under that framework is in the best interests of those patients because under that framework: 61. The combined effect of the Guidelines and the Ministerial approval is that it permits optometrists to treat glaucoma patients without the supervision of members of the First Applicant. 62. The Guidelines and the Ministerial approval therefore permits optometrists to treat glaucoma patients in circumstances where members of the First Applicant cannot ensure that treatment is in the best interests of those patients. 63. The responsibility of the members of the First Applicant in the Second Applicant's Code of Conduct quoted at 53 above

5 5 includes taking all action open to oppose the Guidelines and the Ministerial approval. 64. These proceedings are within the scope of the action described at paragraph 63 above. 67. Fellowship with the Second Applicant is recognised by the Medical Board of Australia and the Commonwealth Minister for Health and Ageing as a qualification to attain the specialty of ophthalmology. 68. By its articles of association, the objects of the Second Applicant are, inter alia, to:...promote the study of the science and practice of ophthalmology and to promote investigation and research in ophthalmology and related sciences and branches of medicine and to bring together ophthalmologists for their common benefit and for scientific discussions and to disseminate knowledge of the principles and practice of ophthalmology by such means as may be thought fit......consider all questions affecting the interests of the [Second Applicant] and to promote or oppose any legislative or other measures affecting such matters or concerned with ophthalmology or related sciences or branches of medicine or as are related to the interests of the [Second Applicant]. 69. By clause 44(a) of the articles of association of the Second Applicant, the Board of the Second Applicant is required to further the objects of the [Second Applicant] in such a way as to benefit persons engaged in the training or practice of ophthalmology whether members of the College or not or so as to benefit the general public. 70. In pursuance of the objects set out at paragraphs 68 and 69 above, the Second Applicant is responsible for determining standards of care by its members in the practice of ophthalmology in the following ways: a) by clause 7 of its articles of association, it determines the education and training requirements that must be met for admission as a member of the Second Applicant; b) pursuant to a standard made by the Medical Board of Australia under the National Law, it is responsible for determining the continuing professional development requirements that must be met by its members; c) by clause 98(c) of its articles of association, it can discipline a member, including by way of expulsion, for a repeated failure to reach reasonable professional standards of competence and diligence ; d) pursuant to its Code of Conduct which sets out standards of care that must be adhered to by its members; and

6 6 Background e) pursuant to its Guidelines described at paragraph 7 above, it sets standards of care that must be afforded by ophthalmologists in respect of patients treated under the shared-care framework. 71. Any treatment of a patient under the share-care (sic) framework is subject to these standards because: a) any initial diagnosis by an optometrist of a patient with glaucoma must be confirmed by an ophthalmologist; and b) any treatment of the patient must be in accordance with a treatment plan determined by the ophthalmologist. 72. The combined effect of the Guidelines and the Ministerial approval is that it permits optometrists to treat glaucoma patients in circumstances where that treatment is not subject to the standards of the Second Applicant described in paragraph 70 above. [6] The applicants standing to bring the application is opposed by the respondent. Optometry Board of Australia ( the Board ), essentially on the basis that they have no special interest in the subject matter of the application beyond that of any other member of the public. 2 Their position as professional bodies of ophthalmologists is said not to provide that standing for the reasons expressed by Gibbs J in Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v the Commonwealth 3 that: The fact that the Foundation is incorporated with particular objects does not strengthen its claim to standing. A natural person does not acquire standing simply by reason of the fact that he holds certain beliefs and wishes to translate them into action, and a body corporate formed to advance the same beliefs is in no stronger position. If it is the fact that some members of the Foundation have a special interest - and it is most unlikely that any would have a special interest to challenge the exchange control transaction - it would not follow that the Foundation has locus standi, for a corporation does not acquire standing because some of its members possess it [7] No individual ophthalmologist has elected to be an applicant in this proceeding. Ms Melllifont QC for the applicants made it clear that the focus of the applicants concerns was on the standards of professional care to be applied to patients rather than their individual members financial interests. [8] The instruments challenged are an approval purportedly made by the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council on 31 March 2010 under s 14 of the National Law for the Respondent to endorse the registrations of optometrists in respect of medicines described therein and Guidelines purportedly made by the respondent 2 3 Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v The Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493, 526; see also Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd (1981) 149 CLR 27, and Central Queensland Speleological Soc Inc v Central Queensland Cement Pty Ltd (No 1) [1989] 2 Qd R 512, , (1980) 146 CLR 493, 531; see also Right to Life Association (NSW) Inc v Secretary, Department of Human Services and Health (1995) 56 FCR 50, 64, 67, 69,

7 7 under s 39 of the national law called the Guidelines for Use of Scheduled Medicines (undated). [9] Since the mid 1990s optometrists have become involved in the treatment of glaucoma pursuant to a shared care framework which required confirmation of an optometrist s diagnosis of glaucoma by an ophthalmologist who would then initiate treatment and decide on a management plan. That shared care framework was adopted in guidelines made by the Board in 2010 and in similar guidelines made by the College. The challenged instruments changed the Board s guidelines and the applicants will contend, if they have standing, that they are invalid. In that context they argue that, in determining standing, regard must be had to the public interest in the observance by statutory authorities of the limitations upon their activities which the legislature has imposed. 4 Is the application premature? [10] The applicants argue that it is generally inappropriate to dismiss judicial review proceedings on the ground of standing, relying on this passage from the reasons of Lord Wilberforce in Inland Revenue Commissioners v National Federation of Self- Employed and Small Businesses Ltd: 5 There may be simple cases in which it can be seen at the earliest stage that the person applying for judicial review has no interest at all, or no sufficient interest to support the application: then it would be quite correct at the threshold to refuse him leave to apply. The right to do so is an important safeguard against the courts being flooded and public bodies harassed by irresponsible applications. But in other cases this will not be so. In these it will be necessary to consider the powers or the duties in law of those against whom the relief is asked, the position of the applicant in relation to those powers or duties, and to the breach of those said to have been committed. In other words, the question of sufficient interest can not, in such cases, be considered in the abstract, or as an isolated point: it must be taken together with the legal and factual context. [11] A similar approach was adopted by Gibbs CJ sitting as a single judge of the High Court in Davis v Commonwealth of Australia 6 where he discussed an argument for the applicants who were Aborigines wishing to challenge the validity of the Australian Bicentennial Authority Act 1980 (Cth). They claimed standing on three separate grounds: a direct pecuniary interest in certain clothing bearing the name of the Bicentennial Authority, a special interest in the subject matter of the action by virtue of their being Aborigines and their status as taxpayers. When discussing the asserted strong belief on the part of the plaintiffs that the Act was offensive and undesirable as well as unconstitutional, his Honour said: However it was submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that as Aboriginals, descendants of the indigenous inhabitants of this country, they have a special interest in objecting to a statute which is designed to assist the celebration of the settlement and occupation of See Bateman s Bay Local Aboriginal Land Council v The Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund Pty Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 247, 267 at [50]. [1982] AC 617, 630. (1986) 68 ALR 18, 23-24; [1986] HCA 66; (1986) 61 ALJR 32.

8 8 Australia by peoples who were not indigenous to this continent. It was further submitted that this interest goes beyond a mere emotional or intellectual concern, and that the cultural and civic interests of the plaintiffs are affected. As at present advised, although I agree that the plaintiffs, as Aboriginals, are members of a class which may have a special interest in challenging the validity of the Act, I find difficulty in accepting that the interest is other than emotional or intellectual. Having regard to the principles which govern applications of this kind it is not necessary for me to express any concluded view whether the plaintiffs have an interest sufficient to give them standing; it is enough to say that it seems to me that the plaintiffs' argument cannot be dismissed as frivolous or hopeless - opinions may differ upon its acceptability and it is not plain and beyond debate that it must fail. It would therefore be wrong to strike out paras 6 and 41 of the statement of claim. [12] As Mr Sullivan QC pointed out, however, the appeal in Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v The Commonwealth 7 was from a summary determination striking out the appellant s case because it lacked standing, so the issue can certainly be determined at this stage in a proper case. In such a case it may often be appropriate to take the point at an early stage to save costs. 8 Where the case is arguable, however, it may be preferable to determine it at the trial. 9 Largely because of my conclusion that the applicants have standing, my view is that, in this case, it would have been preferable to deal with the issue at trial. Special interest [13] Decisions such as Alliance to Save Hinchinbrook Inc v Cook, 10 Save Bell Park Group v Kennedy, 11 and North Queensland Conservation Council Inc v Executive Director, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, 12 all suggest that these applicants would be entitled to be treated as persons aggrieved for the purpose of proceedings under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld). 13 But that test may not be appropriate in this case. A person aggrieved may be in a wider category than persons whose interests are, for example, affected by a decision. 14 [14] Here the applicants need to show that they have a special interest in the subject matter of the action greater than that of an ordinary member of the public, a test that Mr Sullivan QC submitted was narrower again. Nonetheless, it is a flexible test and (1980) 146 CLR 493. Central Queensland Speleological Soc Inc v Central Queensland Cement Pty Ltd (No 1) [1989] 2 Qd R 512, , ; Brisbane Airport Corporation Ltd v Wright [2002] FCA 359 at [2]. Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v The Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493, 552; Hussein v Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 90 ALD 285, 295 at [50-51]. [2007] 1 Qd R 102, 106 at [21] [2002] QSC 174 at [14]. [2000] QSC 172 at [9]-[13]. Not that such decisions have escaped criticism; see Save the Ridge Inc v Australian Capital Territory (2004) 182 FLR 155, at [18] per Crispin J. See Onesteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd v Whyalla Red Dust Action Group Inc [2006] SASC 114 at [16], [28] and Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Australian Lock Co Pty Ltd (2005) 216 ALR 652, 657; [2005] FCA 203 at [29].

9 9 has been described in the High Court in Bateman s Bay Local Aboriginal Land Council v The Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund Pty Ltd in these terms: 15 [46] In the joint judgment of Brennan, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ in Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association v Minister for Industrial Affairs (SA), reference was made to the requirement that the plaintiff have a special interest in the subject matter of the action. Their Honours stated that the rule is flexible and continued that the nature and subject matter of the litigation will dictate what amounts to a special interest. This emphasises the importance in applying the criteria as to sufficiency of interest to support equitable relief, with reference to the exigencies of modern life as occasion requires. It suggests the dangers involved in the adoption of any precise formula as to what suffices for a special interest in the subject matter of the action, where the consequences of doing so may be unduly to constrict the availability of equitable remedies to support that public interest in due administration which enlivens equitable intervention in public law. That would be the consequence of the adoption of the approach taken by the primary judge in this litigation. It will be recalled that, in Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd, Brennan J warned that to deny standing may be to deny to an important category of modern public statutory duties an effective procedure for curial enforcement. [47] In Australian Conservation Foundation v The Commonwealth Aickin J suggested a course which in the present case would involve asking whether the interest of the respondents in the observance by the appellants of the prohibition in s 11 (1) of the Funeral Funds Act and of the limitations upon their statutory powers is sufficiently related to the relief claimed. His Honour said: The interest of a plaintiff in the subject matter of an action must be such as to warrant the grant of the relief claimed... [T]he plaintiff s interest should be one related to the relief claimed in the statement of claim. [15] The decision in Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd 16, where a group of Aborigines from a particular tribe wished to restrain a breach of the Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972 (Vic), made it clear that a special interest is not limited to a pecuniary interest. Gibbs CJ said the rule requiring the applicant to have a special interest in the subject matter of the action was obviously a flexible one since what is a sufficient interest will vary according to the nature of the subject matter of the litigation. 17 His Honour went on to say: 18 The position of a small community of aboriginal people of a particular group living in a particular area which that group has traditionally occupied, and which claims an interest in relics of their ancestors found in that area, is very different indeed from that of a diverse group of white Australians associated by some common Bateman s Bay Local Aboriginal Land Council v The Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund Pty Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 247, at [46]-[47] by Gaudron, Gummow and Kirby JJ (footnotes omitted). (1981) 149 CLR 27 (1981) 149 CLR 27, 36. (1981) 149 CLR 27, 37.

10 10 [16] Stephen J said: 19 [17] Brennan J said: 20 Submissions opinion on a matter of social policy which might equally concern any other Australian. [T]he distinction between this case and the A.C.F. Case is not to be found in any ready rule of thumb, capable of mechanical application; the criterion of special interest supplies no such rule. As the law now stands it seems rather to involve in each case a curial assessment of the importance of the concern which a plaintiff has with particular subject matter and of the closeness of that plaintiff s relationship to that subject matter. The present appellants are members of a small community of aboriginal people very long associated with the Portland area; the endangered relics are relics of their ancestors' occupation of that area and possess for their community great cultural and spiritual significance. While Europeans may have cultural difficulty in fully comprehending that significance, the importance of the relics to the appellants and their intimate relationship to the relics readily finds curial acceptance. It is to be distinguished, I think, and will be perceived by courts as different in degree, both in terms of weight and, in particular, in terms of proximity, from that concern which a body of conservationists, however sincere, feels for the environment and its protection. Courts necessarily reflect community values and beliefs, according greater weight to, and perceiving a closer proximity to a plaintiff in the case of, some subject matters than others. The outcome of doing so, however rationalized, will, when no tangible proprietary or possessory rights are in question, tend to be determinative of whether or not such a special interest exists as will be found standing to sue. A special interest in the subject matter of an action being neither a legal nor equitable right, nor a proprietary or pecuniary interest, will ordinarily be found to arise from modem legislation enacted to protect or enhance non-material interests - interests in the environment, in historical heritage, in culture. Where such a statute imposes a public duty to protect or enhance a non-material interest a breach of the duty is apt to affect a non-material interest, and it would be vain to search for proprietary or pecuniary damage suffered by a plaintiff. A plaintiff in such a case, though he may be able to show a special interest in what the statute seeks to protect or enhance, would be unable to show a private right or to prove that he has suffered proprietary or pecuniary damage. To deny standing would deny to an important category of modem public statutory duties an effective procedure for curial enforcement. [18] The argument for the applicants is that, until recently, standards of patient safety in the treatment of glaucoma have primarily been determined by the second applicant (1981) 149 CLR 27, 42. (1981) 149 CLR 27, 73.

11 11 The shared care arrangements had ensured that decisions as to the treatment of glaucoma by optometrists have been made by ophthalmologists. Those ophthalmologists are bound by the standards of patient safety determined by the second applicant. The respondent s abandonment of the shared care arrangement allows optometrists to treat patients with glaucoma without the supervision of ophthalmologists, which deprives the second applicant of its capacity to determine the standards of care of those patients and, accordingly, gives it a special interest in challenging the instruments. [19] Similarly, in respect of the first applicant, it was submitted that the medicopolitical interests of ophthalmologists in Australia include the obligation of ophthalmologists to individually and collectively advocate for patients safety which includes those patients treated pursuant to the shared care framework. The conclusion urged was that their obligations include opposition to the attempt by the respondent to permit optometrists to treat patients with glaucoma outside of the shared care framework which again led to the applicants having a special interest in challenging the instruments. [20] Ms Mellifont QC submitted that what the applicants brought to the subject matter of this litigation was an informed concern based on information, knowledge and experience which went beyond that of general members of the public. Each organisation had a special interest in patient safety in this area of ophthalmology greater than that of a member of the general public. [21] The Board argues that the fact that the responsibilities for the determination of these standards of treatment by optometrists now rest with it and the Medical Board under the relevant legislation means that the applicants do not have a special interest in seeking to determine the validity of the instruments the subject of this application. The appropriate contradictor, in Mr Sullivan s submission, was the Medical Board in its role as the setter of standards for all medical specialities. There was no need for a role to be accorded to the applicants to challenge the legality of the instruments. 21 Conclusion and orders [22] The evidence establishes to my satisfaction that the applicants roles in setting and advocating standards of patient care for the treatment of glaucoma by ophthalmologists over many years gives them standing to challenge the validity of instruments which, although directed to the conduct of optometrists, have the effect of removing ophthalmologists from their previous role in the process. The applicants have an interest in the treatment of glaucoma which may be nonmaterial but which is very different indeed from that of a diverse group of ordinary Australians associated by some common opinion on a matter of social policy which might equally concern any other Australian to adapt the language of Gibbs CJ in Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd. 22 [23] Their functions as organisations, historical roles in the regulation of and advocacy for standards of patient care and the specialised knowledge derived from their membership set them quite apart from other members of the public. In my view Seeking to distinguish North Queensland Conservation Council Inc v Executive Director, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service [2000] QSC 172 at [35]. (1981) 149 CLR 27, 37.

12 12 their standing is clear and certainly not so obviously untenable that their application should be dismissed at this stage. [24] Accordingly, the application by the respondent filed 26 August 2013 is dismissed. I shall hear the parties further as to costs.

Judicial Review. The issue is whether the decision was made under Commonwealth or State law and which court has jurisdiction.

Judicial Review. The issue is whether the decision was made under Commonwealth or State law and which court has jurisdiction. Judicial Review Jurisdiction The issue is whether the decision was made under Commonwealth or State law and which court has jurisdiction. Federal decisions must go to the Federal courts and State (and

More information

Standing Road Map. The Question

Standing Road Map. The Question Standing Road Map The Question The Commonwealth Government introduced the Federal Tobacco Products Advertising Regulation in 2000, the effect of which was to ban advertising of all tobacco products without

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Jackson-Knaggs v Queensland Newspapers P/L [2005] QCA 145 MARK ANDREW JACKSON-KNAGGS (applicant/respondent) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY (first

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: 6923 of 2003 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Holland & Anor. v. Queensland Law Society Incorporated & Anor. [2003] QSC 327 GREGORY IAN HOLLAND

More information

DEVELOPMENTS IN JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE CONTEXT OF IMMIGRATION CASES. A Comment Prepared for the Judicial Conference of Australia's Colloquium 2003

DEVELOPMENTS IN JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE CONTEXT OF IMMIGRATION CASES. A Comment Prepared for the Judicial Conference of Australia's Colloquium 2003 DEVELOPMENTS IN JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE CONTEXT OF IMMIGRATION CASES A Comment Prepared for the Judicial Conference of Australia's Colloquium 2003 DARWIN - 30 MAY 2003 John Basten QC Dr Crock has provided

More information

Immigration Law Conference February 2017 Panel discussion Judicial Review: Emerging Trends & Themes

Immigration Law Conference February 2017 Panel discussion Judicial Review: Emerging Trends & Themes Immigration Law Conference February 2017 Panel discussion Brenda Tronson Barrister Level 22 Chambers btronson@level22.com.au 02 9151 2212 Unreasonableness In December, Bromberg J delivered judgment in

More information

Judicial Review of Decisions: The Statement of Reasons

Judicial Review of Decisions: The Statement of Reasons Judicial Review of Decisions: The Statement of Reasons Paper by: Matt Black Barrister-at-Law Presented by: Matthew Taylor Barrister-at-Law A seminar paper prepared for Legalwise: The Decision Making and

More information

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW THE EMERGING ROLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND PRIVATE LAW REMEDIES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW THE EMERGING ROLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND PRIVATE LAW REMEDIES ADMINISTRATIVE LAW THE EMERGING ROLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND PRIVATE LAW REMEDIES Tom Brennan Edited version of a paper presented to a joint Australian Corporate Lawyers Association / Australian Institute

More information

Some ethical questions when opposing parties are. unrepresented or upon ceasing to act as a solicitor

Some ethical questions when opposing parties are. unrepresented or upon ceasing to act as a solicitor Some ethical questions when opposing parties are unrepresented or upon ceasing to act as a solicitor Monash Guest Lecture in Ethics 9 March 2011 G.T. Pagone * I thought I might talk to you today about

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Bourne v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QSC 231 KATRINA MARGARET BOURNE (applicant) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: BHP Coal Pty Ltd & Ors v Treasurer and Minister for Trade and Investment; BHP Coal Pty Ltd & Ors v Treasurer, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Baden-Clay [2013] QSC 351 PARTIES: THE QUEEN (Applicant) FILE NO/S: 467 of 2013 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: v GERARD ROBERT BADEN-CLAY (Respondent)

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: No 3696 of 2018 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Midson Construction (Qld) Pty Ltd & Ors v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

More information

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION Emeritus Professor Enid Campbell Introduction In the course of parliamentary proceedings ministers may sometimes provide explanations

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: State of Queensland v O Keefe [2016] QCA 135 PARTIES: STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant/appellant) v CHRISTOPHER LAURENCE O KEEFE (respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 9321

More information

CHOICE OF LAW (GOVERNING LAW) BOILERPLATE CLAUSE

CHOICE OF LAW (GOVERNING LAW) BOILERPLATE CLAUSE CHOICE OF LAW (GOVERNING LAW) BOILERPLATE CLAUSE Need to know A choice of law clause (or governing law clause) enables contracting parties to nominate the law which applies to govern their contract. The

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: O Keefe & Ors v Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service [2016] QCA 205 CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE O KEEFE (first appellant) NATHAN IRWIN (second appellant)

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Burragubba & Anor v Minister for Natural Resources and Mines & Anor (No 2) [2017] QSC 265 ADRIAN BURRAGUBBA (first applicant) LINDA BOBONGIE, LESTER BARNADE,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Tropac Timbers P/L v A-One Asphalt P/L [2005] QSC 378 PARTIES: TROPAC TIMBERS PTY LTD ACN 108 304 990 (plaintiff/respondent v A-ONE ASPHALT PTY LTD ACN 059 162 186

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Perpetual Limited v Registrar of Titles & Ors [2013] QSC 296 PARTIES: PERPETUAL LIMITED (ACN 000 431 827) (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PERPETUAL TRUSTEES AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Commonwealth DPP v Costanzo & Anor [2005] QSC 079 PARTIES: FILE NO: S10570 of 2004 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (applicant) v

More information

JUDICIAL REVIEW 1. THE DECISION(S)? 2A. JURISDICTION OF COURTS FOR JR

JUDICIAL REVIEW 1. THE DECISION(S)? 2A. JURISDICTION OF COURTS FOR JR 1. THE DECISION(S)? JUDICIAL REVIEW 1. What is the Decision(s)? o Carefully read the facts regarding this. A number of actions by DM may constitute different decisions under the Act. 2. Who is the DM?

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Taylor v Company Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 309 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: 12009 of 2010 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: DAVID JAMES TAYLOR, by his Litigation Guardian BELINDA

More information

FAILURE TO GIVE PROPER, GENUINE AND REALISTIC CONSIDERATION TO THE MERITS OF A CASE: A CRITIQUE OF CARRASCALAO

FAILURE TO GIVE PROPER, GENUINE AND REALISTIC CONSIDERATION TO THE MERITS OF A CASE: A CRITIQUE OF CARRASCALAO 2018 A Critique of Carrascalao 1 FAILURE TO GIVE PROPER, GENUINE AND REALISTIC CONSIDERATION TO THE MERITS OF A CASE: A CRITIQUE OF CARRASCALAO JASON DONNELLY In Carrascalao v Minister for Immigration

More information

Supreme Court New South Wales

Supreme Court New South Wales Page 1 of 14 Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation Australian Vaccination Network Inc v Health Care Complaints Commission [2012] NSWSC 110 Hearing Dates 22 February 2012 Decision Date 24/02/2012

More information

Griffith University v Tang: Review of University Decisions Made Under an Enactment

Griffith University v Tang: Review of University Decisions Made Under an Enactment Griffith University v Tang: Review of University Decisions Made Under an Enactment MELISSA GANGEMI* 1. Introduction In Griffith University v Tang, 1 the court was presented with the quandary of determining

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Maclag (No 11) P/L & Anor v Chantay Too P/L (No 2) [2009] QSC 299 PARTIES: MACLAG (NO 11) PTY LTD ACN 010 611 631 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BURNS FAMILY TRUST (first plaintiff)

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: In the matter of: ACN 103 753 484 Pty Ltd (in liq) formerly Blue Chip Development Corporation Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 64 TERRY GRANT VAN DER VELDE AND DAVID MICHAEL

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Queensland Police Credit Union Ltd [2013] QSC 273 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: BS 3893 of 2013 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: QUEENSLAND POLICE CREDIT UNION LIMITED

More information

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Caratti v Commissioner of Taxation [2016] FCA 754 File number: NSD 792 of 2016 Judge: ROBERTSON J Date of judgment: 29 June 2016 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE application

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Cousins v Mt Isa Mines Ltd [2006] QCA 261 PARTIES: TRENT JEFFERY COUSINS (applicant/appellant) v MT ISA MINES LIMITED ACN 009 661 447 (respondent/respondent) FILE

More information

Coe v Commonwealth [1993] HCA 42; (1993) 68 ALJR 110; (1993) 118 ALR 193 (17 August 1993) HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Coe v Commonwealth [1993] HCA 42; (1993) 68 ALJR 110; (1993) 118 ALR 193 (17 August 1993) HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA Coe v Commonwealth [1993] HCA 42; (1993) 68 ALJR 110; (1993) 118 ALR 193 (17 August 1993) HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA ISABEL COE ON BEHALF OF THE WIRADJURI TRIBE v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and STATE

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Conveyor & General Engineering Pty Ltd v Basetec Services Pty Ltd and Anor [2014] QSC 30 CONVEYOR & GENERAL ENGINEERING PTY LTD ACN 091 865 235 (Applicant)

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Port Ballidu Pty Ltd v Mullins Lawyers [2017] QSC 91 PARTIES: PORT BALLIDU PTY LTD ACN 010 820 185 (plaintiff) v MULLINS LAWYERS (third defendant) FILE NO/S: No 7459

More information

State Reporting Bureau

State Reporting Bureau State Reporting Bureau \ac03js sc Queensl Government Department of Justice Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made

More information

SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 20

SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 20 Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 195 ALR 24 The text on pages 893-94 sets out s 474 of the Migration Act, as amended in 2001 in the wake of the Tampa controversy (see Chapter 12); and also refers

More information

REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND SECTION 33 OF THE ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901

REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND SECTION 33 OF THE ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND SECTION 33 OF THE ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 Dennis Pearce* The recent decision of the Federal Court in Nicholson-Brown v Jennings 1 was concerned with the suspension and subsequent

More information

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA FRENCH C, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL RCB AS LITIGATION GUARDIAN OF EKV, CEV, CIV AND LRV PLAINTIFF AND THE HONOURABLE USTICE COLIN AMES FORREST, ONE OF THE UDGES OF

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: 12888 of 2008 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Taylor v Queensland Law Society Incorporated [2011] QSC 8 SYLVIA PAMELA TAYLOR (appellant)

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Sittczenko; ex parte Cth DPP [2005] QCA 461 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: CA No 221 of 2005 DC No 405 of 2005 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: R v SITTCZENKO, Arkady

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: DIVISION: PROCEEDING: Vadasz v Bloomer Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 261 MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER VADASZ TRADING AS AUSTRALIAN PILING COMPANY

More information

Topic Pleading and Joinder of claims and parties, Representative and Class Actions 1) Res Judicata (Colbran )

Topic Pleading and Joinder of claims and parties, Representative and Class Actions 1) Res Judicata (Colbran ) WEEK 3 Topic Pleading and Joinder of claims and parties, Representative and Class Actions 1) Res Judicata (Colbran 363-370) Res judicata is a type of plea made in court that precludes the relitgation of

More information

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA GAGELER J PLAINTIFF S3/2013 PLAINTIFF AND MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR DEFENDANTS Plaintiff S3/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] HCA 22 26

More information

Another Strahan case loss of legal professional privilege

Another Strahan case loss of legal professional privilege EVIDENCE Another Strahan case loss of legal professional privilege JACKY CAMPBELL,JANUARY 2014 CCH LAW CHAT Jacky Campbell Forte Family Lawyers CCH Law Chat January 2014 Another Strahan case - Loss of

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Nadao Stott v Lyons and Stott (as executors) [2007] QSC 087 PARTIES: NADAO STOTT (under Part IV, sections 40-44, Succession Act 1981) (applicant) AND FILE NO/S: BS

More information

A Law Librarian's Guide Through the Mabo Maze

A Law Librarian's Guide Through the Mabo Maze A Law Librarian's Guide Through the Mabo Maze Anne Twomey Parliamentary Research Service Parliamentary Library, Canberra Introduction This article is a guide through the material which relates to the Mabo

More information

Criminal Organisation Control Legislation and Cases

Criminal Organisation Control Legislation and Cases Criminal Organisation Control Legislation and Cases 2008-2013 Contents Background...2 Suggested Reading...2 Legislation and Case law By Year...3 Legislation and Case Law By State...4 Amendments to Crime

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Castillon v P & O Ports Ltd [2005] QCA 406 PARTIES: LEONARD CASTILLON (plaintiff/respondent) v P & O PORTS LIMITED ACN 000 049 301 (defendant/appellant) FILE NO/S:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Martinek Holdings Pty Ltd v Reed Construction (Qld) Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 329 PARTIES: MARTINEK HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 106 533 242 (applicant/appellant) v REED CONSTRUCTION

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Uzsoki v McArthur [2007] QCA 401 PARTIES: KATHY UZSOKI (plaintiff/respondent) v JOHN McARTHUR (defendant/applicant) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 5896 of 2007 DC No 1699 of

More information

Profiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working directors

Profiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working directors Profiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working directors Author: Tim Wardell Special Counsel Edwards Michael Lawyers Profiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working

More information

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT DISPUTES: EMPHASISING THE LAW OF CONTRACT. Tom Brennan 1. Barrister, 13 Wentworth Chambers

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT DISPUTES: EMPHASISING THE LAW OF CONTRACT. Tom Brennan 1. Barrister, 13 Wentworth Chambers RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT DISPUTES: EMPHASISING THE LAW OF CONTRACT Tom Brennan 1 Barrister, 13 Wentworth Chambers Australian law has shifted from regulating the employer/employee relationship

More information

Tort proceedings as an accountability mechanism against decisions made by the Department of Immigration

Tort proceedings as an accountability mechanism against decisions made by the Department of Immigration Tort proceedings as an accountability mechanism against decisions made by the Department of Immigration Immigration Law Conference, Sydney 24-25 February 2017 1. The focus of immigration law practitioners

More information

October PO Box Melbourne VIC DX 128 Melbourne Tel Fax justiceconnect.org.au

October PO Box Melbourne VIC DX 128 Melbourne Tel Fax justiceconnect.org.au October 2013 PO Box 16013 Melbourne VIC DX 128 Melbourne Tel +61 3 8636 4400 Fax +61 3 8636 4455 justiceconnect.org.au This information is current at 29 October 2013 and does not constitute legal advice.

More information

TAJJOUR V NEW SOUTH WALES, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, AND THE HIGH COURT S UNEVEN EMBRACE OF PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW

TAJJOUR V NEW SOUTH WALES, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, AND THE HIGH COURT S UNEVEN EMBRACE OF PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW TAJJOUR V NEW SOUTH WALES, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, AND THE HIGH COURT S UNEVEN EMBRACE OF PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW DR MURRAY WESSON * I INTRODUCTION In Tajjour v New South Wales, 1 the High Court considered

More information

Judgment delivered on the 21st day of February locations throughout Australia but, so far as relevant here, at its office at 345 Queen

Judgment delivered on the 21st day of February locations throughout Australia but, so far as relevant here, at its office at 345 Queen IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND Brisbane CA No 10157 OF 2002 Before McPherson JA Davies JA Philippides J [St George Bank Ltd v McTaggart & Ors; [2003] QCA 59] BETWEEN AND AND AND ST

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Eyears v Zufic [2016] QCA 40 PARTIES: MARINA EYEARS (applicant) v PETER ZUFIC as trustee for the PETER AND TANYA ZUFIC FAMILY TRUST trading as CLIENTCARE SOLICITORS

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Tynan & Anor v Filmana Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2015] QSC 367 PARTIES: DAVID PATRICK TYNAN and JUDITH GARCIA TYNAN (plaintiffs) v FILMANA PTY LTD ACN 080 055 429 (first

More information

SOME CURRENT PRACTICAL ISSUES IN CLASS ACTION LITIGATION INTRODUCTION

SOME CURRENT PRACTICAL ISSUES IN CLASS ACTION LITIGATION INTRODUCTION 900 UNSW Law Journal Volume 32(3) SOME CURRENT PRACTICAL ISSUES IN CLASS ACTION LITIGATION THE HON JUSTICE KEVIN LINDGREN * I INTRODUCTION I have been asked to write about some current practical issues

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Body Corporate for Sun City Resort CTS 24674 v Sunland Constructions Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2011] QSC 42 BODY CORPORATE FOR SUN CITY RESORT CTS 24674 (plaintiff)

More information

FURTHER ASSURANCES BOILERPLATE CLAUSE

FURTHER ASSURANCES BOILERPLATE CLAUSE FURTHER ASSURANCES BOILERPLATE CLAUSE Need to know A further assurances clause evidences the agreement of the contracting parties to do everything necessary to complete the transactions contemplated by

More information

Interpretation of Delegated Legislation

Interpretation of Delegated Legislation Interpretation of Delegated Legislation Matt Black Barrister-at-Law A seminar paper prepared for the Legalwise seminar Administrative Law: Statutory Interpretation and Judicial Review 22 November 2017

More information

GARDNER v AANA LTD [2003] FMCA 81

GARDNER v AANA LTD [2003] FMCA 81 FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA GARDNER v AANA LTD [2003] FMCA 81 HUMAN RIGHTS Discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy interim ban imposed to prevent pregnant women from playing in a Netball

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Witheyman v Van Riet & Ors [2008] QCA 168 PARTIES: PETER ROBERT WITHEYMAN (applicant/appellant) v NICHOLAS DANIEL VAN RIET (first respondent) EKARI PARK PTY LTD ACN

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Three P/L v Body Corporate for Savoir Faire Community Titles Scheme 3841 [2008] QCA 167 PARTIES: THREE PTY LTD ACN 069 497 516 (respondent/plaintiff/respondent) v

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: The Proprietors Rosebank GTP 3033 v Locke & Anor [2016] QCA 192 PARTIES: THE PROPRIETORS ROSEBANK GTP 3033 (appellant) v JEREMY LOCKE (first respondent) CAMBRIDGE

More information

Topic 10: Implied Political Freedoms

Topic 10: Implied Political Freedoms Topic 10: Implied Political Freedoms Implied Freedom of Political Communication P will challenge the validity of (section/act) on the grounds that it breaches the implied freedom of political communication

More information

Complaints against Government - Judicial Review

Complaints against Government - Judicial Review Complaints against Government - Judicial Review CHAPTER CONTENTS Introduction 2 Review of State Government Action 2 What Government Actions may be Challenged 2 Who Can Make a Complaint about Government

More information

10 th CONGRESS OF THE IASAJ SYDNEY, MARCH 2010 NATIONAL REPORT OF AUSTRALIA

10 th CONGRESS OF THE IASAJ SYDNEY, MARCH 2010 NATIONAL REPORT OF AUSTRALIA 10 th CONGRESS OF THE IASAJ SYDNEY, MARCH 2010 NATIONAL REPORT OF AUSTRALIA REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS OF GOVERNMENT BY ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS 12 February 2010 Introduction Australia

More information

Review of Administrative Decisions on the Merits

Review of Administrative Decisions on the Merits Review of Administrative Decisions on the Merits By Neil Williams SC 28 October 2008 1. For the practitioner, administrative law matters usually start with a disaffected client clutching the terms of a

More information

Semester 2. Administrative Law Final Notes & Skeletons Monash University LAW3101

Semester 2. Administrative Law Final Notes & Skeletons Monash University LAW3101 Semester 2 14 Administrative Law Final Notes & Skeletons Monash University LAW3101 JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT JUDICIAL REVIEW COMMON LAW/S39B JUDICIARY ACT High Court has original jurisdiction to conduct

More information

Statutory declaration by corporate SMSF trustee

Statutory declaration by corporate SMSF trustee Statutory declaration by corporate SMSF trustee Name of SMSF Fund:... ABN of SMSF Fund:... I, the person named as the declarant in Schedule 1, solemnly and sincerely declare as follows: 1 I am a director

More information

Case management in the Commercial Court and under the Civil Procedure Act *

Case management in the Commercial Court and under the Civil Procedure Act * Case management in the Commercial Court and under the Civil Procedure Act * The Hon. Justice Clyde Croft 1 SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA * A presentation given at Civil Procedure Act 2010 Conference presented

More information

WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY BRIEFING

WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY BRIEFING NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE FOR OHS REGULATION WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY BRIEFING Work Health and Safety Briefing In this Briefing This Work Health and Safety Briefing presents three key cases. The cases have

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Inserve Australia Ltd & Ors v Kinane [2018] QCA 116 PARTIES: INSERVE AUSTRALIA LTD ACN 147 747 859 (first applicant) MICHAEL SYDNEY BYRNE (second applicant) PAUL BENEDICT

More information

THEOPHANOUS v HERALD & WEEKLY TIMES LTD* STEPHENS v WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD*

THEOPHANOUS v HERALD & WEEKLY TIMES LTD* STEPHENS v WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD* THEOPHANOUS v HERALD & WEEKLY TIMES LTD* STEPHENS v WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD* Introduction On 12 October 1994 the High Court handed down its judgments in the cases of Theophanous v Herald & Weekly

More information

MOYNIHAN SJA REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MOYNIHAN SJA REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND File No S6710 of 2003 BETWEEN: AND: RUSSELL JAMES GALT & ANOR BRUCE FLEGG & ANOR MOYNIHAN SJA REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Applicant Respondent CITATION: Galt & Anor v Flegg & Anor

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Electoral Commission of Queensland v Awabdy [2018] QSC 33 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: SC No 7744 of 2017 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF QUEENSLAND (applicant)

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Shorten v Bell-Gallie [2014] QCA 300 PARTIES: IAN RODGER WILLIAM SHORTEN (applicant) v SHIRLEY BELL-GALLIE (respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 11869 of 2013 QCAT Appeal

More information

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. NSD870 of 2007

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. NSD870 of 2007 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. NSD870 of 2007 BETWEEN: AND: AND: ANVIL HILL PROJECT WATCH ASSOCIATION INC Applicant MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER RESOURCES

More information

Under consumption: the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and its application to personal injury 1

Under consumption: the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and its application to personal injury 1 Under consumption: the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and its application to personal injury 1 1. How fascinatingly complex is the Australian Consumer Law ( ACL )! It seems much like some distant unexplored

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: David & Gai Spankie & Northern Investment Holdings Pty Limited v James Trowse Constructions Pty Limited & Ors [2010] QSC 29 DAVID & GAI SPANKIE & NORTHERN

More information

Statutory declaration by individual SMSF trustee/s

Statutory declaration by individual SMSF trustee/s Statutory declaration by individual SMSF trustee/s Name of the SMSF Fund:... ABN of SMSF Fund:... I/We, the person/s named as the declarant/s in Schedule 1, solemnly and sincerely declare as follows: 1

More information

r 28. CASE NOTES Mabo v State of Queensland (1992) 66ALJR408 FEDERAL Native Title Recognized By High Court Linda Pearson Macquarie University Sydney

r 28. CASE NOTES Mabo v State of Queensland (1992) 66ALJR408 FEDERAL Native Title Recognized By High Court Linda Pearson Macquarie University Sydney r 28. CASE NOTES FEDERAL Native Title Recognized By High Court Mabo v State of Queensland (1992) 66ALJR408 The recognition of native title by the full Court of the High Court of Australia in Mabo v Queensland

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Matrix Projects (Qld) Pty Ltd v Luscombe [2013] QSC 4 PARTIES: MATRIX PROJECTS (QLD) PTY LTD ACN 089 633 607 trading as MATRIX HOMES (Applicant) v TONY JASON LUSCOMBE

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: The Hospital v T and Anor [2015] QSC 185 PARTIES: The Hospital (applicant) v T (first respondent) and S (second respondent) FILE NO/S: SC No 4778 of 2015 DIVISION:

More information

Jagroop and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2015] AATA 751 (25 September 2015)

Jagroop and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2015] AATA 751 (25 September 2015) Jagroop and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2015] AATA 751 (25 September 2015) Division: GENERAL DIVISION File Number: 2013/0544 Re: AMITESH BALI CHAND JAGROOP APPLICANT And:

More information

Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing House Inc A BRIEF GUIDE TO COSTS IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing House Inc A BRIEF GUIDE TO COSTS IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing House Inc A BRIEF GUIDE TO COSTS IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION January 2005 Preface In a court proceeding, while orders as to costs are ultimately left to the discretion

More information

CONSENTS AND APPROVALS BOILERPLATE CLAUSE

CONSENTS AND APPROVALS BOILERPLATE CLAUSE CONSENTS AND APPROVALS BOILERPLATE CLAUSE Need to know A consents and approvals clause establishes the process and manner by which a party may give or withhold consent or approval under a contract. If

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Jones v Aussie Networks Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 126 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: 12056/13 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: RHYS EDWARD JONES (applicant) v AUSSIE NETWORKS PTY LTD ABN 44 124

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Doolan and Anor v Rubikcon (Qld) Pty Ltd and Ors [07] QSC 68 SANDRA DOOLAN AND STEPHEN DOOLAN (applicants) v RUBIKCON (QLD) PTY LTD ACN 099 635 275 (first

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Liveri [2006] QCA 152 PARTIES: IN THE MATTER OF THE RULES RELATING TO THE ADMISSION OF LEGAL PRACTITIONERS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND and FILE NO/S: SC

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: SC No 9190 of 2007 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Parker v The President of the Industrial Court of Queensland & Q-Comp [2008] QSC 175

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Balson v State of Queensland & Anor [2003] QSC 042 PARTIES: FILE NO: SC6325 of 2001 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: CHARLES SCOTT BALSON (plaintiff/respondent)

More information

PASTORAL AND GRAZING LEASES AND NATIVE TITLE

PASTORAL AND GRAZING LEASES AND NATIVE TITLE PASTORAL AND GRAZING LEASES AND NATIVE TITLE Graham Hiley QC The background jurisprudence in Mabo No 2, Wik and the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 concerning the extinguishment of native title on leases,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: 13832/10 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: Queensland Harness Racing Limited & Ors v Racing Queensland Limited & Anor [2012] QSC 34 QUEENSLAND HARNESS RACING

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Togito Pty Ltd v Pioneer Investments (Aust) Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2011] QSC 21 TOGITO PTY LTD (plaintiff) v PIONEER INVESTMENTS (AUST) PTY LTD (first defendant)

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: The Public Trustee of Queensland as a Corporation Sole [2012] QSC 178 RE: THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF QUEENSLAND AS A CORPORATION SOLE (applicant) FILE NO/S: 4065

More information

SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 13

SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 13 Re McBain; Ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (2002) 188 ALR 1 The text on page 582 of Blackshield & Williams explains the circumstances of the challenge by the Australian Catholic Bishops

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND Appeal No.411 of 1993

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND Appeal No.411 of 1993 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1994] QCA 005 SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND Appeal No.411 of 1993 Before The President Mr Justice Davies Justice White [Kelsey and Mansfield v. Hill] BETWEEN: MICHAEL STUART KELSEY

More information