Edward Moses Obeid Snr v David Andrew Ipp

The case of Edward Moses Obeid Snr v David Andrew Ipp involved the plaintiffs, Edward Moses Obeid Snr and others, bringing an action against the defendants, who included David Andrew Ipp, the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), and other officials. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, arguing they were denied procedural fairness during an ICAC inquiry into allegations of corruption. The dispute reached the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiffs were denied procedural fairness by the ICAC during the inquiry and whether the defendants had committed misfeasance in public office. The court had to determine whether the plaintiffs were adequately informed of the allegations against them, whether the defendants held public office, and if they exceeded their powers or acted recklessly, causing damage to the plaintiffs. Additionally, the court examined whether the plaintiffs suffered any damage as a result of these actions.

The court found that the plaintiffs were not denied procedural fairness because they had an adequate opportunity to deal with the subject matter of the inquiry. The plaintiffs were not deprived of the possibility of a successful outcome. The court also held that the plaintiffs could not establish that the Commissioner committed misfeasance in public office, as it was not shown that the Commissioner lacked the power to make a suppression order or knew that he lacked such power. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Counsel Assisting did not hold a public office and was not acting recklessly when cross-examining the plaintiffs, and was thus protected by barristers' immunity. Finally, the court determined that the ICAC investigators did not hold public office and that even if they had, it was not established that they acted recklessly or caused any damage to the plaintiffs.

The court dismissed all claims brought by the plaintiffs. The defendants were found not to have committed misfeasance in public office, and the plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief were also dismissed.