Priestley v Hawker [2009] FCA 561

Priestley v Hawker [2009] FCA 561

The Court dismissed the application because the claimed decision for which Mr Priestley sought reasons was not made. The evidence showed that the Presiding Officers decided the matters raised by Mr Priestley may warrant further investigation and referred them to the Parliamentary Service Commissioner for advice and/or inquiry and a report, which encompassed a request under s 40(1)(b) of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 (Cth). As there was no claimed decision, Mr Priestley was not entitled to reasons for it and the application had no reasonable prospect of success under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Application for an Order That the Respondents Provide a Statement of Reasons Under S 13(1) of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Respondents' Notice of Motion for Summary Dismissal Under S 31 a of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)
Outcome
Application dismissed pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), with costs.
Legal Topics
['statement of Reasons' 'administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) S 13' 'summary Dismissal' 'federal Court Jurisdiction' 'person Aggrieved' 'whether Administrative Decision Was Made']
['administrative Law' 'federal Court Procedure' 'parliamentary Service'] ['statement of Reasons' 'administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) S 13' 'summary Dismissal' 'federal Court Jurisdiction' 'person Aggrieved' 'whether Administrative Decision Was Made']

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

Administrative Law Application for an Order That the Respondents Provide a Statement of Reasons Under S 13(1) of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Respondents' Notice of Motion for Summary Dismissal Under S 31 a of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Presiding Officers made the claimed decision not to refer the matter for advice and/or inquiry and a report in accordance with s 40(1)(b) of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 (Cth).' 'Whether Mr Priestley was entitled to reasons under s 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).' 'Whether the application had no reasonable prospect of success and should be dismissed under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).' 'Whether s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) was a source of jurisdiction for the relief sought.' 'Whether Mr Priestley was a person aggrieved by the alleged decision.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the application because the claimed decision for which Mr Priestley sought reasons was not made. The evidence showed that the Presiding Officers decided the matters raised by Mr Priestley may warrant further investigation and referred them to the Parliamentary Service Commissioner for advice and/or inquiry and a report, which encompassed a request under s 40(1)(b) of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 (Cth). As there was no claimed decision, Mr Priestley was not entitled to reasons for it and the application had no reasonable prospect of success under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Application dismissed pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application filed on 3 January 2008 be dismissed pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).' "The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the notice of motion for summary dismissal."]