Cover v ACT Integrity Commission

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.