Sullivan v ADT [2000] NSWSC 386

Sullivan v ADT [2000] NSWSC 386

Although some comments by the Presiding Member were strongly expressed and caused concern, when all complained-of statements were read in context, including repeated statements that the views were preliminary and were given for procedural fairness, they did not establish a reasonable apprehension that the Tribunal would not bring an impartial mind to the matter. The Court exercised its discretion to determine the review despite the availability of an internal appeal because the matter was effectively part heard and determination by the Court was quicker and cheaper.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Tribunal Refusal to Disqualify Itself for Alleged Bias or Prejudgment / Final Hearing After Interlocutory Restraint
Outcome
Summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'apprehended Bias' 'prejudgment' 'procedural Fairness' 'professional Misconduct Proceedings' 'alternative Review']
['administrative Law' 'legal Profession'] ['judicial Review' 'apprehended Bias' 'prejudgment' 'procedural Fairness' 'professional Misconduct Proceedings' 'alternative Review']

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

Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Tribunal Refusal to Disqualify Itself for Alleged Bias or Prejudgment / Final Hearing After Interlocutory Restraint

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether comments by the Presiding Member of the Tribunal evidenced bias or prejudgment.' 'Whether a reasonable and fair minded observer might apprehend that the Tribunal as constituted might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the matter.' 'Whether the Supreme Court should exercise review power despite an alternative internal appeal to an appeal panel of the Tribunal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although some comments by the Presiding Member were strongly expressed and caused concern, when all complained-of statements were read in context, including repeated statements that the views were preliminary and were given for procedural fairness, they did not establish a reasonable apprehension that the Tribunal would not bring an impartial mind to the matter. The Court exercised its discretion to determine the review despite the availability of an internal appeal because the matter was effectively part heard and determination by the Court was quicker and cheaper.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The summons be dismissed.' 'The plaintiff pay the costs of the second defendant.' 'The exhibits be returned.']