Darling Casino Ltd v NSW Casino Control Authority [1997] HCA 11

Darling Casino Ltd v NSW Casino Control Authority [1997] HCA 11

The Authority did not breach the requirements of the Casino Control Act 1992 (NSW) in permitting amendments to SHC's application or in its assessment of probity concerning close associates. The statutory scheme and relevant documents did not prohibit changes before final determination, and the Authority formed its opinion as required. Accordingly, the ground of jurisdictional error failed, and the privative clause (s 155) did not bar judicial review in circumstances where no jurisdictional error was established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From Court of Appeal of NSW
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['privative Clauses' 'judicial Review' 'casino Control Act 1992 (nsw)' 'jurisdictional Error' 'construction of Statutory Provisions' 'natural Justice' 'procedural Fairness']
['administrative Law'] ['privative Clauses' 'judicial Review' 'casino Control Act 1992 (nsw)' 'jurisdictional Error' 'construction of Statutory Provisions' 'natural Justice' 'procedural Fairness']

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

Appeal / High Court Appeal From Court of Appeal of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the NSW Casino Control Authority erred in granting a casino licence to Sydney Harbour Casino Pty Ltd under the Casino Control Act 1992 (NSW)' 'Whether changes to an application after nomination as preferred applicant were impermissible' 'Whether the Authority failed in its probity assessment of close associates under s 13 of the Act' 'Whether s 155 (privative clause) bars judicial review in this instance']

Ratio Decidendi

The Authority did not breach the requirements of the Casino Control Act 1992 (NSW) in permitting amendments to SHC's application or in its assessment of probity concerning close associates. The statutory scheme and relevant documents did not prohibit changes before final determination, and the Authority formed its opinion as required. Accordingly, the ground of jurisdictional error failed, and the privative clause (s 155) did not bar judicial review in circumstances where no jurisdictional error was established.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs']