Broadbridge, W.H. & Anor v Stammers, M.B.[1987] FCA 588

Broadbridge, W.H. & Anor v Stammers, M.B.[1987] FCA 588

The respondent had standing because closure of the Watsons Bay post office would as a practical matter cause him to lose his position there and his accommodation, giving him an interest above that of an ordinary citizen. However, the delegation to the first appellant was not invalidly exceeded: the references to associated policies, procedures and guidelines in the delegation identified matters to which the delegate had to have regard and with which he generally had to comply, but they were administrative and directory rather than mandatory pre-conditions to power. The decision to close the post office was therefore not beyond power.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 1987
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia Concerning an Application for an Order of Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; orders quashing and restraining implementation of the closure decision were set aside and the application for an order of review was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['delegated Authority' 'instrument of Delegation Subject to Policies and Guidelines' 'mandatory or Directory Policies and Guidelines' 'ultra Vires' 'standing' 'person Aggrieved' 'closure of Post Office']
['administrative Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['delegated Authority' 'instrument of Delegation Subject to Policies and Guidelines' 'mandatory or Directory Policies and Guidelines' 'ultra Vires' 'standing' 'person Aggrieved' 'closure of Post Office']

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

Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia Concerning an Application for an Order of Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent was a person aggrieved within the meaning of s.5(1) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and had standing to challenge the decision.' "Whether the first appellant's decision to close the Watsons Bay post office exceeded his delegated authority because the delegation was subject to associated policies, procedures and guidelines." 'Whether the policies and guidelines in the Field Management Manual operated as mandatory pre-conditions to the exercise of the delegated power or as directory administrative guidance.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent had standing because closure of the Watsons Bay post office would as a practical matter cause him to lose his position there and his accommodation, giving him an interest above that of an ordinary citizen. However, the delegation to the first appellant was not invalidly exceeded: the references to associated policies, procedures and guidelines in the delegation identified matters to which the delegate had to have regard and with which he generally had to comply, but they were administrative and directory rather than mandatory pre-conditions to power. The decision to close the post office was therefore not beyond power.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; orders quashing and restraining implementation of the closure decision were set aside and the application for an order of review was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed in part.' 'Set aside orders 2, 3 and 4 made on 1 April 1987; in lieu thereof order that the application for an order of review be dismissed with no order as to costs.' 'Make no order as to the costs of the appeal.']