Scott-Brydges v Lismore City Council [2018] NSWCATAD 215

Scott-Brydges v Lismore City Council [2018] NSWCATAD 215

The applicant was not entitled to compensation under s 66(2) of the Food Act 2003 because there were at least three grounds for making the prohibition order: lack of a food safety supervisor, absence of displayed cleaning and sanitizing procedures, and inadequate cleaning and sanitization compliant with cl 20 of the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Garry Scott-Brydges; Respondent: Lismore City Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; original decision affirmed
Legal Topics
Prohibition Order, Compensation for Food Business Closure, Improvement Notice, Compliance With Food Standards Code
Administrative Law Food Safety Law Prohibition Order Compensation for Food Business Closure Improvement Notice Compliance With Food Standards Code

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Garry Scott-Brydges

Applicant

Lismore City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Were there no grounds for making the prohibition order under s 60 of the Food Act 2003?
  2. 2 Was the applicant entitled to compensation under s 66 of the Food Act 2003 for loss suffered due to the prohibition order?

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not entitled to compensation under s 66(2) of the Food Act 2003 because there were at least three grounds for making the prohibition order: lack of a food safety supervisor, absence of displayed cleaning and sanitizing procedures, and inadequate cleaning and sanitization compliant with cl 20 of the Food Standards Code. The improvement notice was valid, and the council had reasonable grounds to issue the prohibition order. The application accordingly failed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; original decision affirmed

Orders

  • The decision under review is affirmed.