Hall v The University of New South Wales [2003] NSWSC 511

Hall v The University of New South Wales [2003] NSWSC 511

Paragraphs 16-19 could not establish denial of natural justice merely because the expert inquiry used its own medical, scientific or research knowledge without informing the plaintiff, and paragraphs 53-55 sought to challenge the scientific merits of the inquiry's findings rather than matters within judicial review. Those paragraphs therefore should be struck out, with limited leave to replead only matters properly within judicial review and not going to the merits of the inquiry's findings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Proceeding; Application to Strike Out Parts of Amended Statement of Claim / Interlocutory Application Under Part 15 Rule 26 of the Supreme Court Rules
Outcome
Application granted; challenged paragraphs struck out with limited leave to replead; plaintiff ordered to pay the costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['strike Out of Pleadings' 'natural Justice' 'procedural Fairness' 'judicial Review of Administrative Decisions' 'merits Review']
['administrative Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['strike Out of Pleadings' 'natural Justice' 'procedural Fairness' 'judicial Review of Administrative Decisions' 'merits Review']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law Proceeding; Application to Strike Out Parts of Amended Statement of Claim / Interlocutory Application Under Part 15 Rule 26 of the Supreme Court Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether paragraphs 16-19 of the Amended Statement of Claim disclosed a denial of natural justice arising from the inquiry members applying their own medical, scientific or research knowledge.' "Whether paragraphs 53-55 of the Amended Statement of Claim impermissibly sought merits review of the inquiry's findings rather than raising matters within judicial review." 'Whether the plaintiff should have leave to replead an allegation that he was denied natural justice by being denied an opportunity of obtaining a better result.']

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraphs 16-19 could not establish denial of natural justice merely because the expert inquiry used its own medical, scientific or research knowledge without informing the plaintiff, and paragraphs 53-55 sought to challenge the scientific merits of the inquiry's findings rather than matters within judicial review. Those paragraphs therefore should be struck out, with limited leave to replead only matters properly within judicial review and not going to the merits of the inquiry's findings.

Court Disposition

Application granted; challenged paragraphs struck out with limited leave to replead; plaintiff ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Orders

  • ["Paragraphs 16-19 inclusive and paragraphs 53-55 inclusive of the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim be struck out." "The plaintiff has leave to replead so as to raise the allegation that he was denied natural justice by virtue of being denied an opportunity of obtaining a better result, restricted to matters...