Re State Administrative Tribunal; Ex Parte McCourt

Case [2007] WASCA 125


RE THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL; EX PARTE McCOURT [2007] WASCA 125



(2007) 34 WAR 342
SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2007] WASCA 125
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:CIV:2012/20059 FEBRUARY 2007
Coram:STEYTLER P
WHEELER JA
McLURE JA
12/06/07
26Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Order nisi discharged
A
PDF Version
Parties:RUTH ELLEN McCOURT
THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MARK KRASENSTEIN
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION

Catchwords:

Administrative law
Prerogative writs
Certiorari and mandamus
Application for joinder as an intervener pursuant to State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA)
Tribunal applied "Harding test"
Jurisdictional error
Error of law on the face of the record

Legislation:

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 36, s 37(3), s 105

Case References:

Archer v Howell (No 2) (1992) 10 WAR 33
Australian Railways Union v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1930) 44 CLR 319
Corporate Affairs Commission v Bradley [1974] 1 NSWLR 391
Craig v The State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Danagher v Racing Penalties Appeal Tribunal (1995) 13 WAR 531
Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Australian Finance Direct Ltd (2004) ASC 155-064
Harding v Shire of Chittering (2003) 35 SR (WA) 229
Harper v The Racing Penalties Appeal Tribunal of Western Australia [2001] WASCA 217
Hocking v The Southern Greyhound Racing Club Inc (1993) 61 SASR 213
Kaard and City of Nedlands [2005] WASAT 2
Krasenstein and Western Australian Planning Commission [2005] WASAT 201
Krasenstein v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WATPAT 213
Levy v Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579
McCourt v Shire of Busselton [2004] WATPAT 76
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323
News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd (2003) 215 CLR 563
Public Service Board (NSW) v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656
R v Anderson; Ex parte Ipec-Air Pty Ltd (1965) 113 CLR 177
R v Compensation Court (WA); Ex parte State Planning Commission (1990) 2 WAR 242
R v Cook; Ex parte Twigg (1980) 147 CLR 15
Re Bennett-Borlase SM; Ex parte Commissioner of Police, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970322; 20 June 1997
Re Boothman SM; Ex parte M J Edmonson (1984) Pty Ltd v Flint, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980361
Re Boothman SM; Ex parte Optimum Resources v Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Ltd, unreported; FCT SCt of WA; Library No 970347; 11 July 1997
Re Calder; Ex parte Gardner (1999) 20 WAR 525
Re Calder; Ex parte St Barbara Mines Ltd [1999] WASCA 25
Re Carey; Ex parte Exclude Holdings Pty Ltd (2006) 32 WAR 501
Re Croser; Ex parte Rutherford (2001) 25 WAR 170
Re Gillett; Ex parte Rusich [2001] WASCA 111
Re Heaney; Ex parte Flint, unreported; SCt of WA Library No 960320; 3 July 1996
Re McWilliam; Ex parte Juras, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 960637; 7 November 1996

Continue reading Re State Administrative Tribunal; Ex Parte McCourt

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re State Administrative Tribunal; Ex Parte McCourt [2007] WASCA 125
Case
[2007] WASCA 125
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re State Administrative Tribunal; Ex Parte McCourt was brought before the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The applicant, McCourt, sought to be joined as an intervener in proceedings before the State Administrative Tribunal. McCourt argued that the Tribunal's decision was affected by jurisdictional error and an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal had previously denied McCourt's application to intervene in the proceedings, which McCourt now sought to challenge in the Supreme Court.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had correctly applied the "Harding test" in denying McCourt's application to intervene, and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the issue of McCourt's standing to intervene. The court was also required to determine whether the Tribunal's decision involved a jurisdictional error or an error of law on the face of the record that would warrant the issuance of a prerogative writ.

The court found that the Tribunal had not erred in its application of the "Harding test" and that it possessed the jurisdiction to review McCourt's standing to intervene. The court held that the Tribunal's decision did not involve a jurisdictional error or an error of law on the face of the record that would justify the issuance of a prerogative writ. Consequently, the court discharged the order nisi and dismissed McCourt's application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order nisi discharged

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.