EP v Commission for Children and Young People [2003] NSWADT 227

EP v Commission for Children and Young People [2003] NSWADT 227

The applicant repeatedly failed to attend directions hearings and gave no explanation, despite notices and being warned that dismissal would be considered. His conduct amounted to vexatious proceedings within s 73(5)(h) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 in the sense that no foundation had been...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Application Seeking a Declaration Under S 9(1) of the Child Protection (prohibited Employment) Act 1998 That the Applicant Not Be a Prohibited Person / Dismissal of Application
Outcome
Application dismissed under s 73(5)(h) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.
Legal Topics
['prohibited Person' 'child Related Employment' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'want of Prosecution' 'no Costs Jurisdiction']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['prohibited Person' 'child Related Employment' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'want of Prosecution' 'no Costs Jurisdiction']

Source-derived case record

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

Application Seeking a Declaration Under S 9(1) of the Child Protection (prohibited Employment) Act 1998 That the Applicant Not Be a Prohibited Person / Dismissal of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal should determine or dismiss the applicant's s 9(1) application after repeated failures to attend directions hearings." "Whether the applicant's repeated unexplained non-attendance and non-compliance permitted dismissal under s 73(5)(h) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 as vexatious." 'Whether the Tribunal could be satisfied on the material before it that the applicant did not pose a risk to the safety of children.' 'Whether s 9(8) of the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 should prevent a fresh application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant repeatedly failed to attend directions hearings and gave no explanation, despite notices and being warned that dismissal would be considered. His conduct amounted to vexatious proceedings within s 73(5)(h) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 in the sense that no foundation had been established for them. Determining the merits on the limited, untested material would prejudice the applicant because the Tribunal could not be satisfied that he was not a risk to children, while allowing the matter to continue would unfairly prejudice the respondent, which had incurred significant unrecoverable costs. The application was therefore dismissed, with an order clarifying...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed under s 73(5)(h) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.

Orders

  • ['Application is dismissed under section 73(5)(h) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.' 'The Applicant is entitled to make further application under section 9 or section 8(a) of that Act at any time after the date of these orders.']