Black v Hunter New England Health Service [2010] NSWSC 1252

Black v Hunter New England Health Service [2010] NSWSC 1252

The summons was on its face an appeal from an original decision of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, but no appeal lies to the Supreme Court from such a decision unless the matter has been determined by the ADT Appeal Panel. Even if the proceeding were construed as an application for judicial review, the Court would refuse to entertain it because an adequate alternative review by appeal to the ADT Appeal Panel was available. The proceedings were therefore foredoomed to fail and an abuse of process, warranting dismissal under UCPR r13.4.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Administrative Decisions Tribunal Decision; Alternatively Considered as Possible Judicial Review / First Defendant's Notice of Motion Seeking Dismissal Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 R13.4(1)(b) or (c), or Strike Out Under UCPR R14.28(1)(a), (b) or (c)
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed; plaintiff to pay the first defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['administrative Decisions Tribunal Appeals' 'judicial Review' 'alternative Statutory Review Remedy' 'abuse of Process' 'dismissal of Proceedings']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['administrative Decisions Tribunal Appeals' 'judicial Review' 'alternative Statutory Review Remedy' 'abuse of Process' 'dismissal of Proceedings']

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 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Decision; Alternatively Considered as Possible Judicial Review / First Defendant's Notice of Motion Seeking Dismissal Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 R13.4(1)(b) or (c), or Strike Out Under UCPR R14.28(1)(a), (b) or (c)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from a decision of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal where the matter has not been determined by the ADT Appeal Panel.' 'Whether, if the summons were construed as an application for judicial review, the Court should refuse to entertain it because adequate alternative review was available under the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.' 'Whether the proceedings should be dismissed as an abuse of process because they were foredoomed to fail.']

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was on its face an appeal from an original decision of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, but no appeal lies to the Supreme Court from such a decision unless the matter has been determined by the ADT Appeal Panel. Even if the proceeding were construed as an application for judicial review, the Court would refuse to entertain it because an adequate alternative review by appeal to the ADT Appeal Panel was available. The proceedings were therefore foredoomed to fail and an abuse of process, warranting dismissal under UCPR r13.4.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed; plaintiff to pay the first defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings are dismissed.' "The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant's costs."]