Legal Research
Cases
Cover v ACT Integrity Commission

Cover v ACT Integrity Commission

Case [2025] ACTSC 71 3 March 2025

Jurisdiction

Standing

Amicus Curiae

Parliamentary Privilege

Admissibility of Evidence

Constitutional Law

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Cover v ACT Integrity Commission
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 71
Hearing Date:	3 March 2025
Decision Date:	3 March 2025
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [16]
Catchwords:	CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – THE NON-JUDICIAL ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT – The legislature – application by Speaker of ACT Legislative Assembly to be heard as amicus or joined as a party – where evidence potentially subject to parliamentary privilege – where parties cannot waive parliamentary privilege – where Speaker submits that parties may not have particular interest in the issue – appropriate to hear Speaker as a representative of the legislature PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – AMICUS CURIAE – Application by Speaker of ACT Legislative Assembly to be heard as amicus or joined as a party – where evidence potentially subject to parliamentary privilege – where Speaker wishes to make submissions on the issue of parliamentary privilege – where hearing Speaker will not substantially add to cost or length of hearing – either course available under Court Procedures Rules or within the court’s inherent jurisdiction – more appropriate to hear Speaker as amicus than to join as party PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Anticipatory application by Speaker that there be no order as to costs unless the court otherwise considers it appropriate – order not made – inappropriate to make anticipatory cost order
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT), s 19 Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth), s 48A Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT) s 27 Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 220, 3097 Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), s 36 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 20
Cases Cited:	Carne v Crime and Corruption Commission [2022] QCA 141; 11 QR 334 CJC v Dick [2000] QSC 272 Criminal Justice Commission v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [1996] 2 Qd R 444 Criminal Justice Commission v Parliamentary Criminal Justice Commissioner [2001] QCA 218; [2002] 2 Qd R 8 Flegg v Hallett [2014] QSC 278; [2015] 2 Qd R 483 In the matter of the Board of Inquiry into Disability Services [2002] ACTSC 28; 167 FLR 262 Levy v Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579 Obeid v R [2015] NSWCCA 309; 91 NSWLR 226 Queensland Harness Racing Ltd v Racing Queensland Ltd [2011] QSC 125 R v Jackson (1987) 8 NSWLR 116 R v Murphy (1986) 5 NSWLR 18 R v Will [2017] ACTSC 356
Texts Cited:	ACT Integrity Commission, Special Report – Operation Luna (Part 1) (27 June 2024)
Parties:	Leanne Cover ( Plaintiff) ACT Integrity Commission ( Defendant) Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory ( Applicant)
Representation:	Counsel IJ King (Plaintiff) B Kaplan (Defendant) P Bindon (Applicant)
Solicitors Mills Oakley (Plaintiff) ACT Integrity Commission (Defendant) ACT Government Solicitor (Applicant)
File Number:	SC 199 of 2024

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1․Leanne Cover, former Chief Executive of the Canberra Institute of Technology, has brought proceedings seeking declarations and prerogative relief in relation to a report prepared by the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Cover v ACT Integrity Commission

Details

AGLC: Cover v ACT Integrity Commission [2025] ACTSC 71
Case: [2025] ACTSC 71
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the case of Cover v ACT Integrity Commission was heard. The plaintiff, Leanne Cover, former Chief Executive of the Canberra Institute of Technology, sought declarations and prerogative relief in relation to a report prepared by the ACT Integrity Commission. The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory, Mr Mark Parton, sought to be heard as an amicus curiae or to be joined as a party to the proceedings to make submissions on the issue of parliamentary privilege. The court was required to determine whether it was appropriate to hear the Speaker as an amicus curiae or to join him as a party.

The court found that it was appropriate to allow the Speaker to be heard as an amicus. It was clear that the Speaker did not fall within the scope of the Court Procedures Rules, but the Rules did not necessarily define the full scope of the court's power. The court considered that it was likely that the Speaker would be in a position to assist the court, potentially going beyond the submissions that the parties might otherwise make. However, there was no need for that question to unduly delay the proceedings or to unduly burden the parties in the conduct of the proceedings. The court was also mindful of the plaintiff's concerns as to the practical consequences of hearing the Speaker and the potential need for two hearings instead of one. The court concluded that it was appropriate to allow the Speaker to be heard as an amicus.

The court made the following orders: (1) leave was granted to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory to be heard as amicus curiae in the proceedings for the purposes of making written and oral submissions on the issue of parliamentary privilege in accordance with the directions of the court; (2) the costs of the application in proceeding dated 6 February 2025 were reserved; (3) the proceedings were listed for hearing with a 1 day estimate on 29 April 2025 before Justice Mossop; (4) the plaintiff was to prepare a court book and file and serve it by 4 April 2025; (5) the Speaker was to file and serve written submissions limited to not more than 15 pages on parliamentary privilege by 24 March 2025; (6) the plaintiff was to file and serve written submissions limited to not more than 25 pages by 4 April 2025; (7) the defendant was to file and serve written submissions limited to not more than 25 pages by 17 April 2025; (8) the Speaker was to file and serve written submissions in reply limited to not more than 5 pages by 23 April 2025; (9) the plaintiff was to file and serve written submissions in reply limited to not more than 10 pages by 24 April 2025; (10) subject to any direction of the trial judge, oral submissions of the parties and the Speaker were to be limited as follows: (a) 25 minutes for the Speaker; (b) 2 hours for the plaintiff; (c) 1.5 hours for the defendant; (d) 10 minutes for the Speaker in reply; (e) 20 minutes for the plaintiff in reply; (11) the Speaker was to file a combined book of authorities on parliamentary privilege by 24 April 2025; (12) the plaintiff and defendant were each to file a book of authorities (not overlapping) by 24 April 2025; (13) the listing on 11 March 2025 was vacated; (14) liberty to have the matter relisted for further directions on 24 hours’ notice which may be exercised by an email sent to the chambers of Justice Mossop.

Orders