Edward Moses Obeid Snr v David Andrew Ipp

[2016] NSWSC 1376

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Summary available
• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	Edward Moses Obeid Snr -v- David Andrew Ipp [2016] NSWSC 1376
Hearing dates:	2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17 August 2016
Decision date:	27 September 2016
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Hammerschlag J
Decision:	Plaintiffs’ claims dismissed.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — STATUTES — Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW) (“the Act”) — inquiry into allegations of corruption — requirement to provide procedural fairness to potentially affected persons — claim by the plaintiffs for declaratory relief that they were denied procedural fairness by reason of the non-disclosure of a number of specified matters — HELD: denial of procedural fairness not established — the plaintiffs had an adequate opportunity to deal with the relevant subject matter — the plaintiffs were not deprived of the possibility of a successful outcome.   TORT — Misfeasance in public office — requirements for liability — whether defendants held public office — whether they knowingly or recklessly exceeded powers — whether they were reckless as to whether plaintiffs would suffer damage — whether plaintiffs suffered damage — CLAIM that ICAC committed misfeasance by knowingly denying procedural fairness — HELD: plaintiffs not denied procedural fairness — damage not established — CLAIM that Commissioner committed misfeasance in public office by making a suppression order which he knew he had no power to make — HELD: not established that the Commissioner had no power — not established that the Commissioner knew he had no power — no damage established — CLAIM that Counsel Assisting committed misfeasance in public office by cross-examining on a knowingly false premise — HELD: Counsel Assisting did not occupy public office — existence of false premise not established — no damage established — Counsel Assisting entitled to barristers’ immunity — CLAIM that ICAC investigators who executed search warrant committed misfeasance in public office by causing videotaping of documents outside search warrant — HELD: investigators executing search warrant did not hold public office — held they did knowingly engage in conduct beyond power — knowledge or recklessness of damage to be suffered not established — no damage established.
Legislation Cited:	Barristers Rules 2011 (NSW) Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW) Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Victorian Police Regulation Act 1958 (Vic)
Cases Cited:	Applicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 225 CLR 88 Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd (2016) 331 ALR 1 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Radio Rentals Ltd (2005) 146 FCR 292 Australian Special Opportunity Fund LP v Equity Trustees Wealth Services Ltd (2015) 323 ALR 570 Brambles Holdings Ltd v Carey (1976) 15 SASR 270 Cannon v Tahche (2002) 5 VR 317 Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232 Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576 Cornwall v Rowan (2004) 90 SASR 269 Duncan v Independent Commission Against Corruption [2016] NSWCA 143 Dunlop v Woollahra…