DEF v Trappett [2017] NSWCA 163

DEF v Trappett [2017] NSWCA 163

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant had access to an adequate review process under the Towards Healing protocol, which may cure any deficiency in procedural fairness at the initial determination. The applicant had initiated this review before commencing Supreme Court proceedings, and full material would be provided to him. The adequacy and existence of the review process, plus doubts as to the Court's jurisdiction (following Agricultural Societies Council of New South Wales v Christie), justified refusal of leave to appeal.

Parties
Applicant: DEF; First Respondent: Scott Trappett; Second Respondent: Dan-Phuong Nguyen; Third Respondent: Mark Eustance; Fourth Respondent: The Hon John Dunford QC; Fifth Respondent: The Most Reverend Archbishop Mark Coleridge
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Jurisdiction of Courts Over Decisions of Private Bodies, Appeals From Private Decision Making Processes
Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Jurisdiction of Courts Over Decisions of Private Bodies Appeals From Private Decision Making Processes

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DEF

Applicant

Scott Trappett

First Respondent

Dan-Phuong Nguyen

Second Respondent

Mark Eustance

Third Respondent

The Hon John Dunford QC

Fourth Respondent

The Most Reverend Archbishop Mark Coleridge

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review decisions of a private body which do not affect legal rights or obligations
  2. 2 Whether denial of procedural fairness in an initial assessment process can be cured by subsequent review process
  3. 3 Adequacy of review process as remedy for alleged procedural fairness breach

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant had access to an adequate review process under the Towards Healing protocol, which may cure any deficiency in procedural fairness at the initial determination. The applicant had initiated this review before commencing Supreme Court proceedings, and full material would be provided to him. The adequacy and existence of the review process, plus doubts as to the Court's jurisdiction (following Agricultural Societies Council of New South Wales v Christie), justified refusal of leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Confirm order made 19 June 2017 refusing leave to appeal
  • No order as to costs