Kang v Bishop & Ors [2018] NSWSC 46

Kang v Bishop & Ors [2018] NSWSC 46

Mr Bishop, as a public officer, was authorised under s 14 and s 173 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) to institute proceedings, without needing express delegation from the Secretary under the Fair Trading Act. No legal or factual basis existed for removal of the proceedings to the Court of Appeal under UCPR r 1.21(1).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Judicial Review Proceedings / Motion to Remove to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Plaintiff's notice of motion seeking removal to the Court of Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['transfer of Proceedings' 'judicial Review' 'authority to Prosecute' 'public Officer Definition' 'criminal Procedure']
['administrative Law'] ['transfer of Proceedings' 'judicial Review' 'authority to Prosecute' 'public Officer Definition' 'criminal Procedure']

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

Interlocutory Application in Judicial Review Proceedings / Motion to Remove to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proceedings for judicial review ought to be removed to the Court of Appeal under UCPR r 1.21(1)' "Whether Mr Bishop was authorised to institute prosecution as a 'public officer' under Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)"]

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Bishop, as a public officer, was authorised under s 14 and s 173 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) to institute proceedings, without needing express delegation from the Secretary under the Fair Trading Act. No legal or factual basis existed for removal of the proceedings to the Court of Appeal under UCPR r 1.21(1).

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's notice of motion seeking removal to the Court of Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion dated 2 August 2017 is dismissed.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs of the motion."]