Jesse White v SA Amateur Football League Incorporated

Jesse White, a football player, sought judicial review of a decision by the South Australian Amateur Football League Tribunal, which suspended him for three matches following a disciplinary hearing. White argued that he was denied procedural fairness because the Tribunal did not disclose the details of his Player Management record prior to its consideration of the penalty. This record contained two prior reports of 'rough conduct', which the Tribunal considered relevant in determining the penalty, despite White's denial of any recollection of those incidents. The Tribunal expressed some scepticism regarding White's explanation and suggested a concern that he may have misled the Tribunal. White sought an order quashing the Tribunal's decision or, in the alternative, a declaration that the penalty is null and void.

The court had to decide whether the Tribunal's failure to disclose the Player Management record details in advance of the penalty submissions denied White procedural fairness and whether the decision was therefore invalid. The court noted that procedural fairness is a fundamental requirement in administrative law, particularly in the context of judicial review. In this case, the court held that the Tribunal's failure to disclose the record details was a significant procedural irregularity that denied White a fair opportunity to respond to the material considered by the Tribunal. The court emphasised the importance of full disclosure of relevant material before a decision-maker considers it, to ensure that all parties have an opportunity to address the material fairly. The court concluded that in these circumstances, justice was not manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) empowers the court to grant relief in cases where there has been a failure of procedural fairness. In this case, the court found that the Tribunal's failure to disclose the Player Management record details prior to its consideration of the penalty resulted in a denial of procedural fairness. Accordingly, the court declared the decision made on 27 July 2022 by the Tribunal to be null and void. The court noted that the parties are at liberty to apply for any consequential orders, including the issue of costs.