Daykin v SAS Trustee Corporation - [2001] NSWSC 58

Reported Decision:
(2001) 51 NSWLR 328
[2001] NSWSC 58
[2001] ACL Rep 10 NSW 3

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Daykin v SAS Trustee Corporation [2001] NSWSC 58

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
Administrative Law List

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 30087/00

HEARING DATE(S): 16 February 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 February 2001

PARTIES :

Adam Shane Daykin (Plaintiff)
SAS Trustee Corporation (Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Administrative Decisions Tribunal Appeal Panel

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 009015

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Judge KP O'Connor & ors

COUNSEL : Mr MJ Walsh (Plaintiff)
Ms KT Nomchong (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Oates & Smith (Plaintiff)
In person (Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE - Courts & Judges - Appeal from Administrative Decisions Tribunal Appeal Panel - Assignment of Business - Court of Appeal or Administrative Law List

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, ss 24, 119
Supreme Court Act 1970, s 48
SCR, Pt 12 r 4(2) & Schedule H, Pt 1

CASES CITED: Allders International Pty Limited v Anstee (1986) 5 NSWLR 47
Hargraves v Trotting Authority of New South Wales (unreported - 25 March 1981)
Jeffrey Button Sales Pty Limited v Robson (1985) EOC 92-145
Secretary of the Department of Health v Jamal (unreported - 18 December 1986)
Durovic v Judge (unreported - 25 February 1997)
Wentworth v Rogers (No. 6) (unreported - 10 October 1986)
French v Sydney Turf Club & anor [1999] NSWCA 195

DECISION: Proceedings to be removed into Court of Appeal.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
DUNFORD J
Friday, 16 FEBRUARY 2001
30087/00
ADAM SHANE DAYKIN v SAS TRUSTEE CORPORATION & ORS
HEADNOTE
Appeals under s 119 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 are assigned to the Administrative Law List in the Common Law Division: SCR Pt 12 r 4(2) & Schedule H, Pt 1.
Appeals from a "specified tribunal" are assigned to the Court of Appeal: Supreme Court Act 1970, s 48.
A public body consisting of or comprising a Judge of the District Court (or Compensation Court or a member of the Industrial Relations Commission) is a "specified tribunal": Supreme Court Act 1970, s 48 .
The Appeal Panel of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal must consist of two judicial members and a non-judicial member. Judicial members may either be Judges of the District Court or legal practitioners of 7 years standing: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, s 24.
Held:
Where the Appeal Panel in a particular case includes a Judge of the District Court, any appeal from its decision should be commenced in the Court of Appeal, but in other cases such appeal should be commenced in the Administrative Law List of the Common Law Division .

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
DUNFORD J
Friday, 16 FEBRUARY 2001
30087/00

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: These proceedings, instituted by Summons filed on 5 December 2000, are by way of an appeal from a decision of the Appeal Panel of the Administration Decisions Tribunal ("the Tribunal"),…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Daykin v SAS Trustee Corporation and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] NSWSC 58
Decision Date: 16 February 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Daykin v SAS Trustee Corporation involved the appellant, Daykin, who sought review of a decision by the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed Daykin's appeal against a decision by the SAS Trustee Corporation to assign his business. The appellant contended that the decision was invalid on several grounds, including procedural fairness and the merits of the decision itself. The court was tasked with determining whether the Tribunal's decision should stand or be quashed, and if the matter should be remitted back for reconsideration.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the SAS Trustee Corporation had the authority to assign the appellant's business and if the decision-making process adhered to principles of natural justice. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Tribunal had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions in reviewing the decision. The court examined the statutory framework governing the powers of the SAS Trustee Corporation, the procedural fairness requirements, and the scope of judicial review available under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act.

The court found that the SAS Trustee Corporation did have the statutory authority to assign the business in question, but there were procedural shortcomings in the decision-making process. The court held that the appellant was not given an adequate opportunity to respond to specific concerns raised by the Corporation, which constituted a breach of natural justice. The Tribunal's failure to address this issue led to an improper decision. The court quashed the Tribunal's decision and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration in light of the findings. The appellant's appeal was thus partially successful.

The final orders of the court were to quash the decision of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Tribunal and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration, in accordance with the court's findings. The court did not find it necessary to address the merits of the decision on the merits, as the procedural errors required a new hearing before the Tribunal.

Orders