GM v Department of Human Services (No 2)

The matter before the Supreme Court of South Australia concerned an application by the appellant, GM, for an interlocutory injunction, judicial review, and discovery. GM was seeking to restrain the Central Assessment Unit from commencing or continuing a further "working with children check" and sought declarations regarding the threshold for finding an unacceptable risk to children and the Unit's authority to issue a second prohibition notice while an existing one remained in effect. These applications arose in the context of an existing appeal concerning a prohibition notice issued under the *Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016* (SA), which prohibited GM from undertaking activities involving children.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to prevent a further assessment, and whether the Court of Appeal should hear the judicial review application. The appellant also sought declarations concerning the interpretation of "unacceptable risk" and the validity of issuing a further prohibition notice when one was already in force. The Court was required to consider the procedural implications of new information coming to light that led the respondent to vacate the appeal, and the potential for further assessments to undermine any success the appellant might have on appeal.

The Court refused the application for an interlocutory injunction, finding it appropriate to dismiss this aspect of the application. However, the Court indicated a willingness to consider referring questions of law to the Court of Appeal if a second prohibition notice were issued, without requiring further proceedings in the Tribunal. The Court directed that the applications for judicial review and discovery be heard and determined by the General Division of the Supreme Court. The Court reserved its decision on costs.