Obeid v Independent Commission Against Corruption - [2015] NSWSC 1891

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Obeid v Independent Commission Against Corruption [2015] NSWSC 1891
Hearing dates: 4 December 2015
Date of orders: 14 December 2015
Decision date: 14 December 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Davies J
Decision:
(1) Summons dismissed
(2) The Plaintiffs are to pay the Defendants’ costs.

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – separate proceedings commenced against the Independent Commission Against Corruption and its officers claiming misfeasance in public office – application by plaintiffs to Commissioner for release of documents subject to restrictions from publication – whether release in the public interest - refusal by Commissioner – review of Commissioner’s decision - whether Commissioner asked the wrong question in determining the matter – whether plaintiffs denied procedural fairness - whether decision unreasonable – no legislative duty to give reasons - whether error in reasons invalidated decision – no error demonstrated
Legislation Cited: Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic)
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW)
Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW)
Cases Cited: A v Independent Commission Against Corruption [2014] NSWCA 414; (2014) 88 NSWLR 240
Buck v Bavone (1976) 135 CLR 110
Gypsy Jokers Inc v Commissioner of Police [2008] HCA 4; (2008) 234 CLR 532
Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Taveli (1990) 23 FCR 162
O'Sullivan v Farrer (1989) 168 CLR 210
Sherlock v Lloyd [2010] VSCA 122; (2010) 27 VR 434
W A Pines Pty Ltd v Bannerman (1980) 30 ALR 559
Texts Cited: Aronson and Groves Judicial Review of Administrative Action (5th Ed, 2013, Thompson Reuters)
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Edward Moses Obeid Snr (First Plaintiff)
Moses Edward Obeid (Second Plaintiff)
Paul Edward Obeid (Third Plaintiff)
Edward Joseph Obeid Jnr (Fourth Plaintiff)
Independent Commission Against Corruption (First Defendant)
Megan Latham (Second Defendant)
David Andrew Ipp (Third Defendant)
Geoffrey Maurice Watson (Fourth Defendant)
Grant Lockley (Fifth Defendant)
Paul Anthony Grainger (Sixth Defendant)
Darren John Curd (Seventh Defendant)
State of New South Wales (Eighth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
CRC Newlinds SC, S Chrysanthou & A O’Brien (Plaintiffs)
J K Kirk SC & A Mitchelmore (First and Second Defendants)
P Herzfeld (Third Defendant)
D A McLure SC & P Sharp (Fourth Defendant)
R S Scruby (Fifth Defendant)
S Patterson (Sixth, Seventh & Eighth Defendants)
Solicitors:
Breene & Breene Solicitors (Plaintiffs)
Ashurst Australia (First & Second Defendants)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Third Defendant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Fourth Defendant)
Kemp Strang (Fifth Defendant)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Sixth, Seventh & Eighth Defendants)

File Number(s): 2015/325160

Judgment

On 9 July 2015 the Plaintiffs commenced proceedings against the Honourable David Andrew Ipp AO QC and nine other Defendants claiming declarations that the First to Ninth Defendants engaged in misfeasance in public office, declarations that the reports issued by ICAC entitled Operation Indus Report July 2013, Operation Jasper Reports July 2013 and December 2013, Operation Meeka and Cabot Reports June 2014 and Operation Cyrus Report June 2014 were ultra vires, were not made according to law and were a…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Obeid v Independent Commission Against Corruption 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NSWSC 1891
Decision Date: 14 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Obeid v Independent Commission Against Corruption involved proceedings brought by the plaintiffs against the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) and its officers. The plaintiffs sought a judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner, who had refused to release certain documents that were subject to restrictions on publication. These restrictions were imposed under the ICAC Act, which aimed to protect the integrity of investigations. The plaintiffs argued that the release of these documents was in the public interest and that the Commissioner had made errors in his decision-making process.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the Commissioner had asked the wrong question in determining whether the release of the documents was in the public interest, whether the plaintiffs were denied procedural fairness, and whether the decision was unreasonable. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Commissioner was under a legislative duty to provide reasons for his decision and whether any errors in the reasons provided would invalidate the decision.

The court found that the Commissioner had not asked the wrong question in making his decision. The court also held that the plaintiffs were not denied procedural fairness, as the Commissioner had considered the relevant factors in making his decision. Furthermore, the court concluded that the decision was not unreasonable and that there was no legislative duty to provide reasons for the decision. The court also determined that any errors in the reasons provided did not invalidate the decision, as the decision itself was sound and correctly made.

The final orders of the court were that the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the Commissioner's decision to refuse the release of the documents was upheld. The court found that the Commissioner's decision was lawful, procedurally fair, and not unreasonable. The plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief they sought, and the Commissioner's decision stood as valid and binding.

Orders