City of Port Adelaide Enfield v Bingham

The City of Port Adelaide Enfield contested the Ombudsman's report concerning an investigation into the Council's handling of a complaint regarding tyre storage and recycling. The Ombudsman had recommended that the Council collect tyres from a property and properly dispose of them, asserting the Council had breached procurement policies and failed to ensure compliance with relevant legislation. The Council sought to have the Ombudsman's report declared invalid and removed from the Court.

The legal issues centred on whether the Ombudsman's investigation was empowered under the Ombudsman Act and whether the Ombudsman had committed jurisdictional errors by considering irrelevant factors or neglecting relevant ones. The primary question was whether the Ombudsman's mistaken belief that the complainant was directly affected by the administrative act could validate the investigation under section 13(2) of the Ombudsman Act.

The Court found that the Ombudsman's investigation was not empowered because the complainant was not directly affected by the administrative act, thus the Ombudsman could not rely on section 13(2) as an alternate source of power. Additionally, the Court determined that the Ombudsman had indeed made jurisdictional errors by failing to consider relevant factors such as the nature of the contract, available information, and the Council's procurement procedures policy. The Ombudsman's recommendations were thus flawed.

Accordingly, the Court declared the Ombudsman's report to be ultra vires and ordered its removal from the Court. This quashing effectively nullified the Ombudsman's opinion and recommendation.