Buffier, B.L. v Bowen, L.F

The case of Buffier, B.L. v Bowen, L.F. involved an application for judicial review brought by the applicant, B.L. Buffier, against the respondent, L.F. Bowen, who was the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia at the time. The applicant sought to have a decision made by the respondent set aside, which was the consent given to the institution of proceedings for the summary prosecution of criminal offences under the Companies Ordinance 1962 (A.C.T.). The offences in question had been committed more than three years prior to the decision.

The legal issues before the court were whether the decision-maker was bound to provide the applicant with an opportunity to be heard before the decision was made and whether the decision itself was an improper exercise of power due to a failure to consider relevant factors. The applicant argued that the decision-maker, the Attorney-General, should have afforded him an opportunity to be heard before consenting to the prosecution, which was not done. Additionally, Buffier contended that the decision was flawed because it did not take into account all relevant considerations, particularly the delay in instituting the proceedings.

The court found that the decision-maker was indeed required to provide the applicant with an opportunity to be heard before making the decision. This was based on the principle that natural justice demands a fair hearing for all parties involved in administrative decisions that could significantly affect their legal rights. Furthermore, the court held that the decision was an improper exercise of power due to the failure to take into account the significant delay in instituting the proceedings, which was a relevant consideration that should have been weighed in the decision-making process.

The decision of the court was to set aside the consent given by the Attorney-General to the institution of proceedings. The court also ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the application. This outcome underscores the importance of procedural fairness in administrative law and the need for decision-makers to consider all relevant factors before exercising their powers.