CITATION: McGuirk v NSW Ombudsman [2007] NSWSC 1286 HEARING DATE(S): 2 July 2007, 26 July 2007
JUDGMENT DATE :
13 November 2007JURISDICTION: Supreme Court JUDGMENT OF: Rothman J DECISION: (i) The proceedings be dismissed;
(ii) To the extent necessary, leave to commence or continue these proceedings against NSW Ombudsman be refused;
(iii) The plaintiff shall pay the costs of the defendant of and incidental to these proceedings, as agreed or assessed.
CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATICE LAW – mandamus – duty of Ombudsman to report – duty to conclude investigation – privative clause – locus standi – insufficient interest to initiate or continue proceedings – no interest greater than public – summary judgment – proceedings dismissed. LEGISLATION CITED: Ombudsman Act 1974 (NSW)
Protected Disclosures Act 1994 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1971 (NSW)CASES CITED: AIMPE v Secretary, Department of Transport (1986) 13 FCR 124
Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493
Cameron v HREOC (1993) 46 FCR 509
Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427
ECAJ v Scully (1998) 79 FCR 537
Electrolux v AWU (2004) 221 CLR 309
Onus v Alcoa (1981) 149 CLR 27
P.S.A v F.C.U (1991) 173 CLR 132
Project Blue Sky v ABA (1998) 194 CLR 355
Saraswati v R (1991) 172 CLR 1
Tooheys Ltd v Minster for Business and Consumer Affairs (1981) 54 FLR 421PARTIES: Plaintiff: Gerard Michael McGUIRK
Defendant: NSW OMBUDSMANFILE NUMBER(S): SC 30002/2007 COUNSEL: Plaintiff: Self represented
Defendant: P.R. Garling SCSOLICITORS: Plaintiff: Self represented
Defendant: M. Adofaci (NSW Ombudsman)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LISTROTHMAN J
13 NOVEMBER 2007
JUDGMENT30002/07 Gerard Michael McGUIRK v NSW OMBUDSMAN
1 HIS HONOUR: Gerard McGuirk filed a summons on 4 January 2007 seeking relief against the NSW Ombudsman. The relief Mr McGuirk sought was an order of the Court in the nature of mandamus requiring the Ombudsman to report into allegations relating to certain current and former officers of the University of New South Wales. The Ombudsman had terminated the investigation into these reports on 7 December 2006.
2 The Ombudsman moves the Court (notice of which was filed on 7 February 2007) for orders dismissing the proceedings. After some initial skirmishes the matter was listed for hearing on 2 July 2007 and thereafter by some further written submissions and affidavits, because Mr McGuirk was unaware, despite some notice earlier given, that at least one major issue in the proceedings was his standing to bring the proceedings, to be dealt with on a preliminary basis together with his application for leave. One such notice of that issue was a facsimile from the Court of 5 July 2007. The matter was listed on two further occasions.
The Complaints to the Ombudsman
3 Mr McGuirk’s complaints relate to a failure of the Ombudsman to report on certain allegations relating to the alleged maladministration and corrupt conduct at the University of New South Wales. Mr McGuirk, having worked for a significant period of time…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read McGuirk v NSW Ombudsman and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2007] NSWSC 1286
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that there was no duty on the Ombudsman to report on the complaint or to conclude the investigation. It held that the privative clause in the Ombudsman Act precluded the court from exercising its supervisory jurisdiction over the Ombudsman's decisions. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff did not have sufficient interest to initiate or continue the proceedings, as the plaintiff's interest was no greater than the public's interest in the Ombudsman performing his statutory duty. Consequently, the plaintiff's claims were dismissed, and the proceedings were terminated.
The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory framework governing the Ombudsman's functions and the limitations imposed by the privative clause. The court held that the Ombudsman's discretion was not subject to judicial review, and thus the court could not compel the Ombudsman to report or conclude the investigation. The court also held that the plaintiff lacked the necessary standing to challenge the Ombudsman's decisions, as the plaintiff's interest was no greater than that of the public. This conclusion was based on the principle that the court should not intervene in administrative decisions unless there is a specific interest greater than the public's general interest.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.