ALFY'S PRESTIGE SMASH REPAIRS PTY LTD v LAUER AND ORS [1992] NSWCA 5

ALFY'S PRESTIGE SMASH REPAIRS PTY LTD v LAUER AND ORS [1992] NSWCA 5

The claimant, by virtue of its admission to the police tow roster and the scheme's regular practice, established a legitimate expectation that attracted a duty of procedural fairness before removal; failure to afford procedural fairness rendered the suspension decision open to challenge, and the trial judge erred in holding there was no substantial question to be tried.

Parties
Claimant: Alfy's Prestige Smash Repairs Pty Ltd; Respondent: Lauer and Ors
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 1992
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Refusal of Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Legitimate Expectation, Police Administrative Schemes, Interlocutory Injunctions
Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Legitimate Expectation Police Administrative Schemes Interlocutory Injunctions

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfy's Prestige Smash Repairs Pty Ltd

Claimant

Lauer and Ors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Refusal of Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a police-administered roster scheme lacking specific statutory basis gives rise to a legitimate expectation attracting a duty of procedural fairness
  2. 2 Whether procedural fairness was owed prior to suspension from the tow roster
  3. 3 Whether the refusal of interlocutory relief was in error

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant, by virtue of its admission to the police tow roster and the scheme's regular practice, established a legitimate expectation that attracted a duty of procedural fairness before removal; failure to afford procedural fairness rendered the suspension decision open to challenge, and the trial judge erred in holding there was no substantial question to be tried.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused.
  • Costs of the application for leave to be costs in the proceedings in the Equity Division.