Rapson v Registrar, Domestic Animals Act 2000 (Appeal)

In this case, the appellant, Rapson, appealed against a decision of the Registrar under the Domestic Animals Act 2000. The dispute concerned the Registrar's decision to destroy a dog named Buddha. The appeal was heard by the First Appeal Tribunal, which had to determine whether it could substitute its own decision based on new evidence and whether it could exercise powers under sections 53B, 53C or 68A of the Domestic Animals Act 2000 to destroy Buddha. The Tribunal needed to decide if the appeal tribunal could use powers other than the one used by the original decision-maker when making a substitute decision.

The court found that the appeal tribunal had the authority to substitute its own decision based on the evidence, including new evidence, and the law as they now stood. The court also found that the tribunal could not exercise powers other than the one used by the original decision-maker when making a substitute decision. The court referred to the case of Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission, which held that a court or tribunal entertaining an appeal by way of rehearing can exercise its appellate powers only if satisfied that there was error on the part of the primary decision-maker. However, in this case, further evidence had been admitted on appeal and an error of law had been found by the Supreme Court, so it was not necessary for the appellant to demonstrate an error in the Original Tribunal’s factual findings.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed Order 3 of the Original Tribunal, made on 10 May 2022. The Tribunal found that it was not open to the appeal tribunal to exercise powers, when making a substitute decision, other than the power used to make the decision under review. The Tribunal's powers under section 68 of the ACAT Act were considered by Kennett J in Zapari Property Coombs Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue, which held that the ACAT is armed with the powers that were available to the original decision maker for the purpose of making the decision under review, and not with other decision making powers invested in that entity.