Jainzii Pty Ltd v State of NSW

The case of Jainzii Pty Ltd v State of NSW involved a dispute between a provider of services under the NSW Creative Kids scheme and the State of New South Wales. Jainzii Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought to challenge decisions made by the government agency to suspend its account and to refuse payment under the scheme. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the decisions made by the agency involved the exercise of non-statutory executive power and, if so, whether the provider was entitled to procedural fairness before those decisions were made. Additionally, the court considered whether there was a statutory basis for the agency's exercise of discretion to set aside the agency's decision and whether estoppel by representation could apply against the public authority.

The court held that the decisions to suspend the provider's account and to refuse payment were indeed exercises of non-statutory executive power. It found that the provider was not afforded procedural fairness, as it was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond to matters adverse to its interest before these decisions were implemented. Consequently, the court determined that the agency's actions amounted to a denial of procedural fairness. Furthermore, the court found that while the agency's decisions were not based on statutory authority, the remedy of certiorari could still be exercised to set aside the decisions due to the failure to observe procedural fairness. Additionally, the court ruled that estoppel by representation applied, as the agency's representations induced the provider to act reasonably in reliance on those representations.

The final orders of the court included setting aside the agency's decisions to suspend the provider's account and to refuse payment, and mandating that the agency reconsider these decisions with due regard to procedural fairness. The court also directed the agency to provide the provider with an opportunity to address the matters that led to these decisions, ensuring that procedural fairness was observed in any future determinations.