Roberts, D.M. v. Garrett, J.H. & Ors [1982] FCA 34

Roberts, D.M. v. Garrett, J.H. & Ors [1982] FCA 34

The Tribunal’s interim ruling rejecting a primary submission was not a 'decision' of an administrative character under the AD(JR) Act. It was merely an interlocutory view and intention to resume the appeal hearing, not a final determination. Therefore, there is no decision or relevant conduct susceptible to judicial review at this stage.

Parties
Applicant: David McPherson Roberts; Respondent: John Hugh Garrett; Respondent: Bruce Gooday; Respondent: John Hookey; Respondent: The Chairman, Industries Assistance Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 1982
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Determination of Objection to Competency
Outcome
Objection to competency upheld; application dismissed at this stage
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Redeployment of Public Service Employees, Jurisdiction of Tribunal
Administrative Law Employment Law Judicial Review Redeployment of Public Service Employees Jurisdiction of Tribunal

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David McPherson Roberts

Applicant

John Hugh Garrett

Respondent

Bruce Gooday

Respondent

John Hookey

Respondent

The Chairman, Industries Assistance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Determination of Objection to Competency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal's interim ruling is a 'decision' to which the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 applies
  2. 2 Whether the conduct or proposed conduct of the Tribunal is reviewable under the AD(JR) Act
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant is presently a 'person aggrieved' under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal’s interim ruling rejecting a primary submission was not a 'decision' of an administrative character under the AD(JR) Act. It was merely an interlocutory view and intention to resume the appeal hearing, not a final determination. Therefore, there is no decision or relevant conduct susceptible to judicial review at this stage.

Court Disposition

Objection to competency upheld; application dismissed at this stage

Orders

  • The objection as to competency is upheld.
  • The Applicant is to pay the costs of and incidental thereto.