Brooks v Easther (No 3)

Brooks v Easther (No 3) is an Australian court case that concerns the application of administrative law principles in the context of a statutory board of inquiry. The plaintiff, Brooks, sought a prerogative writ of prohibition to challenge the proceedings of a board of inquiry convened under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act. The defendant, Easther, is the chair of the board of inquiry. The nature of the dispute is whether the board's proceedings contravened the principles of natural justice by either actual bias or apprehended bias, and by denying procedural fairness.

The court was required to determine whether the actions of the board of inquiry violated the principles of natural justice, specifically by exhibiting actual or apprehended bias or by denying procedural fairness. Brooks contended that the chair of the board exhibited bias and that the proceedings did not adhere to the requirements of procedural fairness. The central legal issues were whether the chair's conduct demonstrated bias or the appearance of bias, and if the board's procedural failings breached the tenets of natural justice.

The court carefully examined the conduct of the board and the procedural fairness of the inquiry. It found that the chair of the board had indeed exhibited bias, which was influenced by prior communications with one of the parties involved. This bias was sufficient to taint the proceedings, leading to the conclusion that the board's actions breached the principles of natural justice. The court also noted procedural shortcomings in the board's processes that compounded the unfairness of the inquiry. Ultimately, the court granted the prerogative writ of prohibition, halting the board's proceedings on the grounds of bias and procedural unfairness.