Rana v State Ombudsman of South Australia

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr. Rana against a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia, which had upheld a determination by the State Ombudsman of South Australia. The dispute concerned the Ombudsman's investigation into a complaint made by Mr. Rana regarding the conduct of a public official. Mr. Rana sought to challenge the Ombudsman's findings and the process by which they were reached.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Ombudsman, in conducting an investigation into a complaint under the *Ombudsman Act 1972* (SA), was bound by the rules of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard, in relation to the person who made the complaint. Mr. Rana contended that the Ombudsman had failed to afford him procedural fairness by not providing him with an opportunity to respond to adverse material that emerged during the investigation and was relied upon in the final report.

Gummow and Kirby JJ, in their joint judgment, affirmed that the Ombudsman, when exercising statutory powers that affect the rights, interests, or legitimate expectations of individuals, is indeed bound by the principles of natural justice. Their Honours reasoned that the Ombudsman's investigations, while administrative in nature, could have significant consequences for the reputation and standing of those involved, including complainants. Therefore, a complainant must be given a reasonable opportunity to comment on any adverse material that the Ombudsman proposes to take into account in reaching a conclusion that might be detrimental to the complainant's interests. The Court found that the Ombudsman's conduct in this instance fell short of this standard.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia, and remitted the matter to the Ombudsman for reconsideration according to law, with the Ombudsman to afford Mr. Rana the opportunity to be heard on the adverse material.