Saitta Pty Ltd v Commonwealth

Case [2001] FCA 817

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Saitta Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [2001] FCA 817

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – availability of merits review – whether adequate alternative remedy – allegation that report of Aged Care Standards Agency incorrect – report relied on in relation to accreditation of aged care provider – whether claim for damages for breach of statutory duty, negligence, breach of contract, or misleading and deceptive conduct available in respect of administrative decision

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – summary dismissal – whether no reasonable cause of action disclosed – whether proceeding an abuse of process – claims for damages for breach of statutory duty, negligence, breach of contract, defamation and misleading and deceptive conduct – whether claims clearly untenable – whether declaration of invalidity of administrative decisions could be used as basis for claims for damages – whether common law causes of action should continue when federal element of proceeding falls

STATUTES – delegated legislation – validity – statutory power to promulgate principles –table specifying principles may be made in relation to a corresponding part or section – separate parts specified in relation to accountability principles and accreditation principles – whether provisions of accreditation principles which go beyond purposes of accreditation ultra vires – whether distinction supported by statutory scheme – whether interpretation leads to an absurd or irrational result – whether declarations of invalidity could found claims for damages at common law

Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth) ss 63-1, 65-1, 66-1, 67-1, 67-5, 80-1, 85-1, 85-5, 85-8, 86-9, 96-1, Pts 4.3, 4.4, 5.4, 6.1, 6.2
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 10
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B(1A)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 21
Federal Court Rules, O 20 r 2

General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways(NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125, applied
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577, cited
Saitta Pty Ltd v Commowealth [2000] FCA 1546, followed
Mallinson v Scottish Australian Investment Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 66, cited
Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Co Ltd v Long (1956) 97 CLR 36, cited
Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee [1999] HCA 59, (1999) 200 CLR 1, applied
Cubillo v Commonwealth [2000] FCA 1084, (2000) 103 FCR 1, cited
Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1977) 139 CLR 54, applied

Stephens v West Australian Newspapers Ltd (1994) 182 CLR 211, cited
Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1987) 76 ALR 173, cited
Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570, cited

Butterworths, Halsbury’s Laws of Australia

SAITTA PTY LTD v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, THE HONOURABLE BRONWYN BISHOP (AS THE COMMONWEALTH MINISTER OF STATE FOR AGED CARE), ANDREW PODGER (AS THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND AGED CARE) AND AGED CARE STANDARDS AND ACCREDITATION AGENCY LTD
V 622 of 2000

NEVISKIA PTY LTD v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, THE HONOURABLE…

Continue reading Saitta Pty Ltd v Commonwealth

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Saitta Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [2001] FCA 817
Case
[2001] FCA 817
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Saitta Pty Ltd and Neviskia Pty Ltd, both operators of residential care services, brought proceedings against the Commonwealth, challenging various decisions made under the Aged Care Act. The applicants sought review and quashing of certain decisions made by the Commonwealth, including audit reports, notices of non-compliance, notices of intention to impose sanctions, and decisions to impose sanctions. The applicants also sought declarations and injunctions to prevent the Commonwealth from disclosing certain information.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicants had standing to bring the proceedings and whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear the claims. Specifically, the court had to determine if the applicants could directly challenge the Commonwealth's decisions and conduct under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, and if the claims fell within the Court's jurisdiction.

The Court found that the applicants did not have standing to bring the proceedings as they had not exhausted the internal review processes available under the Aged Care Act. The Court held that the applicants were required to exercise their rights of internal review before seeking judicial review. Additionally, the Court found that the claims did not fall within its jurisdiction as they related to decisions and conduct that were subject to internal review mechanisms. Consequently, the Court dismissed the applications, noting that no valid claim had been made that would justify the relief sought.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the applications brought by Saitta Pty Ltd and Neviskia Pty Ltd against the Commonwealth. The Court ordered that the applicants pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the motions. The Court found that the applicants had not demonstrated that they had standing to bring the proceedings or that the claims were within the Court's jurisdiction.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 The application be dismissed.

2 The motions the subject of the applicant’s notice of motion filed on 14 February 2001 be dismissed.

3 The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding, including the costs of the motions.

1 The application be dismissed.

2 The motions the subject of the applicant’s notice of motion filed on 13 March 2001 be dismissed.

3 The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding, including costs of the motions.

Background

Background to the litigation

Section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) provides for a right of appeal from a decision of the AAT to this Court, on a question of law.The facts So far as I state facts in these reasons for judgment, they are facts alleged in the statement of claim in the relevant proceeding or contained in affidavits filed in relation to the notices of motion. Saitta is the proprietor of a residential care service conducted at 1 Profita Avenue, Sydenham under the name “Belvedere Park Nursing Home”. Its application relates to the following decisions and conduct under the Aged Care Act:(a)the preparation, use, disclosure and publication by the fourth respondent of a Review Audit Report dated 11 April 2000 in relation to Belvedere Park Nursing Home;(b)a decision made on 21 July 2000 that Saitta had not complied with its responsibilities under s 63-1 of the Act (“the non-compliance decision”) which followed the issuing of a notice of non-compliance dated 18 May 2000;(c)the issuing of a notice of intention to impose sanctions dated 21 July 2000 (“the sanctions notice”);(d)a decision to impose sanctions under s 67-5 made on 16 August 2000 (“the sanctions decision”); and(e)a decision made on 4 August 2000 to refuse an application for the certification of Saitta’s residential service under Pt 2.6 (“the certification decision”). Neviskia is the proprietor of a residential care service conducted at 3 Kenilworth Parade, Ivanhoe under the name “Kenilworth Nursing Home”. Its application relates to the following decisions and conduct under the Aged Care Act:(a) the preparation, use, disclosure and publication by the fourth respondent of Review Audit Report dated 22 December 1999 in relation to Kenilworth Nursing Home (“the first Review Audit Report”); (b)the preparation, use, disclosure and publication by the fourth respondent of a Review Audit Report dated 31 January 2000 in relation to Kenilworth Nursing Home (“the second Review Audit Report”);(c)the preparation, use, disclosure and publication by the fourth respondent of a Serious Risk Report dated 9 March 2000 in relation to Kenilworth Nursing Home (“the Serious Risk Report”);(d)the issuing of a notice of intention to impose sanctions dated 10 March 2000 (“the first sanctions notice”) which followed the issuing of notices of non-compliance dated 11 January 2000 and February 2000, and a decision that Neviskia had not complied with its responsibilities under s 63-1 of the Act;(e)a decision to impose sanctions under s 67-5 made on 24 March 2000 (“the first sanctions decision”);(f)the issuing of a further notice of intention to impose sanctions dated 20 April 2000 (“the second sanctions notice”); and(g)a decision to impose further sanctions under s 67-5 made on 24 May 2000 (“the second sanctions decision”). Both applicants have exercised their rights of review under Pt 6.1 of the Aged Care Act in respect of those decisions which are amenable to that review.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

GRAY J
It follows from what I have said that the proceedings, as they stand, should be dismissed. No case was made out for leave to amend the statement of claim in either proceeding. There is no indication that either applicant would be able to make a valid claim, squarely within the jurisdiction of the Court, which would justify the relief sought in the relevant application. Neviskia seeks to amend its statement of claim to raise two decisions not yet the subject of its claims. Those two decisions are part of the chain of steps leading to an ultimate decision. For the reasons I have given in par [27], there would be no point in allowing such an amendment. Conclusion For the reasons I have given, the application in each proceeding must be dismissed. In proceeding V622 of 2000, the motions the subject of the applicant’s notice of motion filed on 14 February 2001 must also be dismissed. In proceeding V641 of 2000, the motions the subject of the applicant’s notice of motion filed on 13 March 2001 must also be dismissed. In each proceeding, the applicant should pay the costs of the respondents of the whole proceeding, including these motions.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAY J

Full text does not contain this section.