Fairfield City Council v Wi

Link copied
Case Copied 42 min read

Administrative Decisions Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Fairfield City Council v WI [2012] NSWADTAP 39
Hearing dates:11 May 2012
Decision date: 16 October 2012
Jurisdiction:Appeal Panel - Internal
Before: S Higgins, Deputy President
D Patten, Deputy President
Professor Goodman-Delahunty, Non Judicial Member
Decision:

1.The appeal allowed in part.

2.Confirm order setting aside appellant's decision of 22 July 2010 to remove the respondent carer's name from its Family Day-Care Register.

3.Quash order that the respondent carer's name be restored to the appellant's Family Day-Care Register.

4.No order as to costs.

Catchwords: Appeal - errors of law - no jurisdiction to review decision of a third party - application for review futile and of no utility - looking behind an adverse earlier finding - admissibility of evidence contradicting or inconsistent with an earlier adverse finding by a third party - applying inapplicable law - failure to give adequate reasons - taking into account irrelevant matters and failure to take into account relevant matters - making findings and reaching conclusions in the absence of a relevant third party - leave to appeal on the merits
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998
Children (Education and Care Services National Law Application Act) 2010
Children (Education and Care Services) National Law (NSW) No 104a
Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Act 2011
Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2012
Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2011
Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2004(repealed)
Children's Services Regulations 2004
Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993
Education and Care Services National Law Act 2010 (Vic)
Cases Cited: AVS Group Australia Pty Limited & Tony Sleiman v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent's Application) [2012] NSWADTAP 24
AVS Group Australia Pty Limited v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2012] NSWADT 1
Brandusiou v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 47
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69
Minister for Community Services v CE (No 2) [2002] NSWADTAP 1
Minister for Community Services v CE (No 1) [2002] NSWADTAP 7
Mouwad v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 50
O'Sullivan v Medical Council of New South Wales [2010] NSWADTAP 64
Sudath v Health Care Complaints Commission [2012] NSWCA 171
Warsow v Warsow [2010] FamCA 591
WI v Fairfield City Council [2011] NSWADT 279
YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Fairfield City Council (Appellant)
WI (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel
E Young (Appellant)
R Lee (Respondent)
Mathews Folbigg Lawyers (Appellant)
File Number(s):119058
Publication restriction:S126 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
 Decision under appeal 
Jurisdiction:
9108
Citation:
[2011] NSWADT 279
Date of Decision:
2011-11-28 00:00:00
Before:
Community Services Division
File Number(s):
104025

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction and Background

  1. This is an appeal by Fairfield City Council (the appellant) from a decision of the Tribunal, in…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Fairfield City Council v Wi 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
[2012] NSWADTAP 39
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in this case was brought by Fairfield City Council against a decision by a carer, identified as the respondent, regarding her removal from the Family Day-Care Register. The dispute was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The primary issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to review a decision made by a third party and whether the application for review was futile and of no utility.

The court had to decide whether the respondent's application for review was futile and of no utility, if the evidence presented could contradict or be inconsistent with an earlier adverse finding by a third party, whether inapplicable laws were applied, if adequate reasons were provided, and if relevant and irrelevant matters were taken into account. The court also considered if findings and conclusions were made without the presence of the relevant third party and if leave to appeal on the merits was granted.

The court found that the appeal was allowed in part. It confirmed the order setting aside the appellant's decision to remove the respondent carer's name from its Family Day-Care Register. The order that the respondent carer's name be restored to the appellant's Family Day-Care Register was quashed. No order was made as to costs. The court ruled that the appeal was valid but did not grant the restoration of the respondent carer's name to the register, highlighting the nuanced balance between procedural fairness and jurisdictional limitations in administrative law.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.The appeal allowed in part.

2.Confirm order setting aside appellant's decision of 22 July 2010 to remove the respondent carer's name from its Family Day-Care Register.

3.Quash order that the respondent carer's name be restored to the appellant's Family Day-Care Register.

4.No order as to costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.