McFarlane v Outback Communities Authority

[2024] SASC 54

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Civil: Judicial Review)

MCFARLANE v OUTBACK COMMUNITIES AUTHORITY

[2024] SASC 54

Judgment of the Honourable Justice Hughes  

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - PREROGATIVE WRITS AND ORDERS - CERTIORARI - GROUNDS FOR CERTIORARI TO QUASH - EXCESS OR WANT OF JURISDICTION - PARTICULAR INSTANCES OF JURISDICTIONAL ERROR

PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY - SUMMARY DISPOSAL - SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT OR RESPONDENT: STAY OR DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDINGS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - GROUNDS OF REVIEW - PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS - BIAS

The applicant seeks judicial review of interlocutory orders made in the District Court of South Australia on a review of a minor civil action. The minor civil action was a debt recovery action by the Outback Communities Authority in relation to unpaid community contributions allegedly owed  by the applicant. The applicant was found to owe $9,662.92 by a Magistrate and sought a review.

Prior to the review being heard in the District Court, the applicant sought various interlocutory orders. These applications included inter alia that the Chief Judge hear the review, that a third party be joined to the action, that questions of law be referred to the Court of Appeal, and that the matter proceed as a retrial. The Judge allowed the applicant to file an amended grounds of review and to be assisted by a communications partner, but refused the other applications except for the application to proceed by way of a re-trial which was reserved for determination at the hearing of the review. The Judge delivered an ex tempore decision.

The applicant seeks judicial review of the refusals of his interlocutory applications, as well as the conduct of the District Court Judge, on grounds of apprehended bias and jurisdictional error.

The respondent applied for summary dismissal of the judicial review on the basis that the applicant has no prospect of succeeding.  The respondent contended that the nature of the scheme for review of minor civil actions militates against fragmentation.  The respondent argued if the judicial review were to proceed and errors were identified, relief would not be appropriate in the exercise of the Court’s discretion.

The respondent maintained that in any event the conduct of the Judge did not give rise to an apprehension of bias, and the orders made were within jurisdiction and appropriate.

Held:

The interlocutory nature of the orders in respect of which judicial review is sought, and the discretionary nature of the relief, lead to the conclusion that the judicial review is amenable to summary dismissal.  The applicant’s contentions on judicial review disclosed no basis upon which it might be found, if the matter proceeded to hearing, that an apprehension of bias arose or that any errors going to the Judge’s jurisdiction had been committed.  The respondent’s application for summary dismissal is granted.  Judicial review action CIV-22-012932 is dismissed, and the review of the minor civil proceeding should proceed in the District Court.

Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 3, s 38;