Jeffery v Roberts - [2001] NSWADT 66

CITATION: Jeffery & Ors -v- Roberts [2001] NSWADT 66

DIVISION: General Division

PARTIES: APPLICANTS
Victor Robert Jeffery
Jack Ireland
Barry Clendinning
William Coombe
RESPONDENT
Lennard Roberts

FILE NUMBER: 003306

HEARING DATES: On the papers

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 11/28/2000

DATE OF DECISION:
04/27/2001

BEFORE: Britton A - Judicial Member; Lees M - Judicial Member; Antonios Z - Member

APPLICATION: Dismissal from civic office - Local Government Act - dismissal from civic office

MATTER FOR DECISION: Preliminary matter

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth)
Local Government (Elections) Regulation 1998
Local Government Act 1993
Parliamentary Electorates and Election Act 1912

CASES CITED: Evans -v- Crichton-Browne (1981) 147 CLR 169
Smith -v- Oldham (1912) 15 CLR 355
R -v- Grey; Ex Parte Marsh (1985) 157 CLR 351
Bourne -v- Murphy (1996) 92 LGERA 329
In Re Collins; Ex Parte Hockings (1989) 167 CLR 522

REPRESENTATION: In person
In person

ORDERS: 1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain this application.; 2. This matter to be set down for hearing at a date to be determined by the Registrar

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 On 18 September 2000 the applicants, Messrs Victor Robert Jeffery, Jack Ireland, Barry Clendinning and William Coombe, filed an application with the Administrative Decisions Tribunal under s 329 of the Local Government Act1993 (the Act) seeking an order that the respondent, Mr Lennard Roberts be dismissed as a councillor of the Great Lakes Local Council (the Council). This is a decision “on the papers,” pursuant to s.76 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act , 1997 (the Tribunal Act) concerning the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to entertain this application.

2 At a directions hearing on 24 October 2000 before Deputy President Hennessy, the parties were directed to file and serve submissions on the issue of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to entertain this application. Specifically the parties were asked to address whether the words contained in s. 329 of the Act, “any irregularity in the manner in which the person has been elected or appointed to that office” extended to “irregularities” that occurred prior to polling day.

Background

3 Following the resignation of a councillor of the Great Lakes Local Council a by-election was conducted by the Electoral Commissioner to fill that vacancy. The polling day was 1 July 2000 and on 5 July 2000 the poll was declared, proclaiming the respondent, Mr Lennard Roberts, elected as councillor.

4 The applicants assert that various acts by the respondent during the conduct of the election, amount to irregularities within the meaning of s. 329 of the Act. First, it is alleged, that in contravention of r.109 of the Local Government (Elections) Regulation 1998 (the Regulations), the respondent placed a misleading electoral advertisement in the M anning Great Lakes Extra , wrongly stating it was “Authorised by Peter Thompson.” According to the applicants, the respondent sought to gain an electoral advantage from this purported endorsement by Mr Thompson, a popular councillor widely known within the electorate. In addition, the applicants claim that had…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Jeffery v Roberts

Details

AGLC: Jeffery v Roberts [2001] NSWADT 66
Case: [2001] NSWADT 66
Decision Date: 04/27/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jeffery v Roberts involved a dispute between the applicant, Jeffery, and the respondent, Roberts. The matter was heard in the Tribunal, which was called upon to determine whether it had the authority to hear the application brought by Jeffery against Roberts. The nature of the dispute was essentially jurisdictional, focusing on whether the Tribunal had the power to entertain the application or whether the matter should be referred elsewhere. The Tribunal was tasked with examining the legal framework governing its jurisdiction and applying it to the specifics of the case at hand.

The central legal issue the Tribunal had to address was whether it had the jurisdiction to hear and decide on the application brought by Jeffery against Roberts. This required an examination of the statutory provisions that define the Tribunal's powers, as well as any relevant case law or precedents that might influence the outcome. The Tribunal needed to ascertain whether the application fell within its remit, considering the nature of the claims and the relief sought by Jeffery. This involved a careful analysis of the relevant legislative instruments and any applicable legal principles.

In delivering its decision, the Tribunal found that it did indeed have the jurisdiction to hear the application. It based its conclusion on a detailed examination of the statutory provisions and the specific circumstances of the case. The Tribunal noted that the application fell squarely within its remit, as it pertained to matters that the legislation intended it to adjudicate. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered relevant case law which supported its jurisdiction in similar matters. The Tribunal's reasoning was thorough, reflecting a deep understanding of both the statutory framework and the legal principles that govern jurisdictional questions. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that it had the authority to proceed with the case and ordered that the matter be set down for a hearing at a date to be determined by the Registrar.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain this application.; 2. This matter to be set down for hearing at a date to be determined by the Registrar

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.

CITATION:	Jeffery & Ors -v- Roberts [2001] NSWADT 66
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANTS Victor Robert Jeffery Jack Ireland Barry Clendinning William Coombe RESPONDENT Lennard Roberts
FILE NUMBER:	003306
HEARING DATES:	On the papers
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	11/28/2000
DATE OF DECISION:	04/27/2001
BEFORE:	Britton A - Judicial Member; Lees M - Judicial Member; Antonios Z - Member
APPLICATION:	Dismissal from civic office - Local Government Act - dismissal from civic office
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Preliminary matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth) Local Government (Elections) Regulation 1998 Local Government Act 1993 Parliamentary Electorates and Election Act 1912
CASES CITED:	Evans -v- Crichton-Browne (1981) 147 CLR 169 Smith -v- Oldham (1912) 15 CLR 355 R -v- Grey; Ex Parte Marsh (1985) 157 CLR 351 Bourne -v- Murphy (1996) 92 LGERA 329 In Re Collins; Ex Parte Hockings (1989) 167 CLR 522
REPRESENTATION:	In person In person
ORDERS:	1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain this application.; 2. This matter to be set down for hearing at a date to be determined by the Registrar