Ashby v Commonwealth of Australia

In the Federal Court of Australia, Mr. Ashby, a former parliamentary employee, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Finance to deny his application for an act of grace payment under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (Cth). Mr. Ashby sought the payment to cover legal fees incurred from litigation he had brought against a Member of Parliament and the Commonwealth. The court was required to determine whether there were any errors in the delegate's assessment of Mr. Ashby's claims that he was a whistleblower or that his claims were not evaluated with sufficient detail, whether the delegate's conclusion that an act of grace payment to the Member of Parliament did not influence Mr. Ashby's litigation was irrational, and if the delegate failed to consider relevant evidence that the proceedings were not highly politicised. The court also considered whether there was any error in the delegation rendering the decision-making power of the delegate void.

The court found that the delegate did not fail to assess Mr. Ashby's claims that he was a whistleblower, nor was the delegate required to give further or better consideration to these claims. The court held that the delegate's finding that the act of grace payment made to the Member of Parliament did not influence the litigation was not irrational and was within the exercise of their jurisdiction. The court further found that there was no failure to deal with evidence relating to the claims that the proceedings were highly politicised. The applicant's interpretation of the delegation power was not sensible or pragmatic, and the conduct of the delegate in this case was clearly contemplated by the delegation's authorising Act.

The court dismissed the application with costs. The claims made by paragraphs 1 and 2 of the originating application, insofar as they were reflected in grounds 1, 3, and 4 of the amended statement of grounds of judicial review, were dismissed. The question of costs of and incidental to the above claims and grounds was reserved. The parties were directed to confer and within 14 days, or such longer time as may be allowed, email the associate to Justice Bromwich agreed or competing draft procedural orders for the hearing and determination of the remaining parts of the applicant's case. In the event that there were any outstanding procedural issues which required an in-court adjudication, the balance of the applicant's case was to be listed for a case management hearing on a date to be fixed in February 2021 in consultation with the parties.