RE -v- LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL [2015] WASC 51

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASC 51
Case No:	GDA:9/2014	Heard:	21 JANUARY 2015
Coram:	CORBOY J	Delivered:	11/02/15
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ELIZABETH RE LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Catchwords:	Administrative law State Administrative Tribunal Whether Tribunal had jurisdiction to find a local government council member had committed a minor breach under the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) that was different to the breach alleged in a complaint to the Local Government Standards Panel Local government The jurisdiction of the Local Government Standards Panel under s 5.110 Local Government Act
Legislation:	Local Government Act 1995 (WA), s 5.110 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 29
Case References:	Bloomfield v Real Estate & Business Agents Supervisory Board of Western Australia (1995) 13 SR (WA) 138 Tarjali-Diab v NSW Department of Commerce (No 2) [2005] NSWADT 288 The Queen v The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardingham (1980) 144 CLR 13

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : RE -v- LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL [2015] WASC 51 CORAM : CORBOY J HEARD : 21 JANUARY 2015 DELIVERED : 11 FEBRUARY 2015 FILE NO/S : GDA 9 of 2014 BETWEEN : ELIZABETH RE

Appellant

AND

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL

Respondent

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Intervenor

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MR P McNAB (SENIOR MEMBER)

Citation : RE and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL [2014] WASAT 111

File No : DR 344 of 2013

Catchwords:

Administrative law - State Administrative Tribunal - Whether Tribunal had jurisdiction to find a local government council member had committed a minor breach under the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) that was different to the breach alleged in a complaint to the Local Government Standards Panel

Local government - The jurisdiction of the Local Government Standards Panel under s 5.110 Local Government Act

Legislation:

Local Government Act 1995 (WA), s 5.110

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 29

Result:

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr L E James

Respondent : No appearance

Intervenor : Ms C S Bydder

Solicitors:

Appellant : Kott Gunning

Respondent : No appearance

Intervenor : State Solicitor for Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bloomfield v Real Estate & Business Agents Supervisory Board of Western Australia (1995) 13 SR (WA) 138
Tarjali-Diab v NSW Department of Commerce (No 2) [2005] NSWADT 288
The Queen v The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardingham (1980) 144 CLR 13

CORBOY J

The application and the result

1 The appellant, Ms Re is a councillor of the City of Stirling. In February 2012, the then Mayor of the City, Mr Boothman, made a complaint alleging that the appellant had breached reg 7(1) of the Local Government…

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 Re v Local Government Standards Panel 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] WASC 51
Decision Date: 11 FEBRUARY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Local Government Standards Panel was the subject of a complaint against a local government council member, and the Panel referred the matter to the State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the member had committed a minor breach under the Local Government Act 1995 (WA), but not the one alleged in the complaint. The matter was brought to the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where the issue was whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to make a finding different from the one alleged in the complaint. The court was required to determine the jurisdiction of the Local Government Standards Panel under section 5.110 of the Local Government Act.

The court found that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to find a breach different from the one alleged in the complaint. The court held that the Tribunal's jurisdiction was limited to the breach alleged in the complaint, and it could not make a finding of a different breach. The court also found that the Tribunal had erred in law by making a finding outside the scope of the complaint. The court held that the Tribunal's decision was invalid and quashed the decision.

The court allowed the appeal and granted leave to appeal. The decision of the Tribunal was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal to be dealt with in accordance with the court's decision. The court did not make any further orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed

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.