McGuirk v NSW Ombudsman [2008] NSWCA 357

McGuirk v NSW Ombudsman [2008] NSWCA 357

The applicant's possible benefit from completion and issue of an Ombudsman report was speculative because the Ombudsman had no general obligation to complete the investigation or make a report, any obligation under s 26 could be affected by procedural fairness and apprehended bias objections, and the applicant had no entitlement to receive any report or information from the Ombudsman. His interest beyond that of the public was therefore insufficiently significant or substantial to make him 'personally interested' within Supreme Court Act 1970 s 65, so he lacked standing and had insufficient prospects of success to justify leave to appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Leave Application From Orders Dismissing Proceedings and Refusing Leave to Commence or Continue Proceedings Against the NSW Ombudsman
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['nsw Ombudsman' 'discontinuance of Investigation' 'standing' 'order to Fulfil Duty' 'procedural Fairness']
['administrative Law'] ['nsw Ombudsman' 'discontinuance of Investigation' 'standing' 'order to Fulfil Duty' 'procedural Fairness']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Leave Application From Orders Dismissing Proceedings and Refusing Leave to Commence or Continue Proceedings Against the NSW Ombudsman

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant was personally interested within Supreme Court Act 1970 s 65 in the Ombudsman's fulfilment of any duty to finalise an investigation or issue a report." 'Whether the Ombudsman had any relevant duty to complete an investigation or make a report under the Ombudsman Act 1974.' 'Whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness by the primary judge.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's possible benefit from completion and issue of an Ombudsman report was speculative because the Ombudsman had no general obligation to complete the investigation or make a report, any obligation under s 26 could be affected by procedural fairness and apprehended bias objections, and the applicant had no entitlement to receive any report or information from the Ombudsman. His interest beyond that of the public was therefore insufficiently significant or substantial to make him 'personally interested' within Supreme Court Act 1970 s 65, so he lacked standing and had insufficient prospects of success to justify leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal refused with costs.']