Reysson Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2)

Reysson Pty Ltd, a contractor, brought an action against the Roads and Maritime Services, a government agency, challenging a decision that resulted in their exclusion from a tendering process for roadworks. The matter came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales for a preliminary determination regarding the appropriate forum for the claim. The central issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the case or if it should be determined by the Land and Environment Court.

The court needed to decide if the claim was an administrative decision within the meaning of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (NSW), and whether the statutory scheme governing the tendering process designated a specific tribunal for the resolution of disputes. The court considered the nature of the decision, the statutory provisions, and the relationship between the statutory scheme and the common law. The court found that the decision was indeed an administrative decision subject to judicial review, and that while the statutory scheme did not explicitly exclude the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the specific statutory process for challenging the decision pointed towards the Land and Environment Court as the appropriate forum.

In determining the appropriate forum, the court applied the principle that where a statutory scheme provides an exclusive or primary jurisdiction for the resolution of disputes, that jurisdiction should be followed. Given the specific statutory process outlined for challenging the decision, the court held that the Land and Environment Court was the appropriate forum for the dispute. Consequently, the application was dismissed. The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the preliminary question on the ordinary basis, with leave to proceed immediately to assessment if the costs are not agreed within a reasonable time. Additionally, the court ordered that the respondent pay 50 per cent of the applicant's costs of the notice of motion filed on 17 February 2012.