McKendry v Richards

McKendry v Richards involved a judicial review of a decision made by Richards, an administrative decision-maker. McKendry, the applicant, sought to overturn the decision on the grounds of unreasonableness and procedural unfairness. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. McKendry argued that Richards’ decision was unreasonable because it was not supported by evidence and procedural fairness was not observed when fresh evidence was not admitted.

The court was tasked with determining whether Richards' decision was unreasonable and whether procedural fairness was breached by the refusal to admit fresh evidence. The primary legal issue was whether the decision was so lacking in evidence as to be unreasonable and whether the refusal to admit fresh evidence was an error of law or a breach of procedural fairness. McKendry had the onus to demonstrate that the decision was unreasonable and that procedural fairness was not observed.

The court found that the decision was not unreasonable as it was based on evidence presented. The court emphasised that it was open to the decision-maker to make findings based on the evidence before them. Additionally, the court held that the refusal to admit fresh evidence did not constitute a breach of procedural fairness as it was not a particular instance warranting such admission. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered McKendry to pay costs.