Lohse v Arthur [2009] FCA 1076

The objected evidence was inadmissible because it amounted to an after the event characterisation by the decision-maker and did not determine whether procedural fairness had been accorded according to established principles, requiring evaluation before the decision and without reliance on post hoc justifications.

Parties: Applicant: Michael James Lohse; First Respondent: Ian Allan Arthur; Second Respondent: Geoff McKinnon; Third Respondent: Janet Coppin
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 14 September 2009
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review / Interlocutory Objection to Affidavit Evidence
Outcome: Objection to evidence upheld in part; evidence rejected
Legal Topics: Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Evidence Admissibility

Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Evidence Admissibility

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

Michael James Lohse

Applicant

Ian Allan Arthur

First Respondent

Geoff McKinnon

Second Respondent

Janet Coppin

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interlocutory Objection to Affidavit Evidence

Legal Issues

1 Whether portions of the affidavit evidence should be excluded on grounds of relevance
2 Application of principles of procedural fairness in decision-making

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Objection to evidence upheld in part; evidence rejected

Orders

Objection to paragraphs 23 and 24 of the affidavit of Ian Arthur sworn 9 February 2009 is upheld and the evidence in those paragraphs rejected.
In paragraph 25, the third, fourth and sixth sentences are rejected.