Secretary, Department of Education v Joys Child Care Ltd

The case between Secretary, Department of Education and Joys Child Care Ltd was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. Joys Child Care Ltd operated a child care centre under an approval from the Department of Education. Following an investigation, the Secretary sought to cancel Joys Child Care Ltd's approval, alleging breaches of the statutory regime governing child care centres. Joys Child Care Ltd contested the allegations and the Secretary's authority to cancel the approval. The court was required to determine whether the Secretary had the statutory authority to cancel the approval, whether Joys Child Care Ltd had breached the statutory regime, and whether the Secretary had standing to seek the injunctive and declaratory relief requested.

The court considered whether the Secretary's statutory power to cancel the approval was subject to any discretionary considerations and whether the statutory prohibition against operating a child care centre without approval was enforceable through equitable relief. The court found that the Secretary had the statutory authority to cancel the approval without discretion, and that the prohibition was enforceable through equitable relief. The court also found that Joys Child Care Ltd had breached the statutory regime by operating the child care centre through a third party without the required approval. The court rejected Joys Child Care Ltd's argument that the Secretary lacked standing to seek the relief requested, as the Secretary had a direct interest in enforcing the statutory regime and protecting the welfare of children in child care centres.

The court granted the Secretary's application for injunctive and declaratory relief, declaring that Joys Child Care Ltd's approval was invalid and that Joys Child Care Ltd was prohibited from operating a child care centre without the required approval. The court also found that the Secretary had standing to seek the relief requested, and that the interaction between equitable relief and criminal process did not prevent the Secretary from seeking the relief. The court did not consider it necessary to determine whether the offence of strict liability applied to the Secretary's application, as the Secretary had not sought to enforce the criminal penalty. The court did not make any orders regarding the service agreement with the third party.