Sordini, D. & Ors v. Wilcox, S.F. & Ors [1982] FCA 150

Sordini, D. & Ors v. Wilcox, S.F. & Ors [1982] FCA 150

The Review Committee complied with the requirements of the Legal Aid Ordinance, conducted its review according to guidelines, gave reasonable opportunity for representations, and reached a decision that was not unreasonable, nor affected by a breach of natural justice or improper exercise of discretion.

Parties
Applicant: Danilo Sordini; Applicant: Domenico Sordini; Applicant: Vittoria Sordini; Respondent: Stuart Francis Wilcox; Respondent: Alan Anthony Hardiman; Respondent: Stanford Bruce Juddery; Respondent: Legal Aid Commission (A.C.T.)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 1982
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Legal Assistance Allocation, Exercise of Discretion, Natural Justice
Administrative Law Judicial Review Legal Assistance Allocation Exercise of Discretion Natural Justice

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Danilo Sordini

Applicant

Domenico Sordini

Applicant

Vittoria Sordini

Applicant

Stuart Francis Wilcox

Respondent

Alan Anthony Hardiman

Respondent

Stanford Bruce Juddery

Respondent

Legal Aid Commission (A.C.T.)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Review Committee properly exercised its discretion in allocating legal assistance by officers of the Commission instead of private legal practitioners
  2. 2 Whether the rules of natural justice or statutory procedures required by law were observed in the review process

Ratio Decidendi

The Review Committee complied with the requirements of the Legal Aid Ordinance, conducted its review according to guidelines, gave reasonable opportunity for representations, and reached a decision that was not unreasonable, nor affected by a breach of natural justice or improper exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The respondents have leave to move for an order for costs.