Stewart v Ronalds

The case of *Stewart v Ronalds* concerned a challenge brought by a Minister of the Crown against the Lieutenant-Governor and the Premier of New South Wales. The dispute arose from the Premier's advice to the Lieutenant-Governor to withdraw the Minister's commission, following an investigation into alleged misconduct. The Minister sought judicial review of these actions and also raised claims in tort and concerning parliamentary privilege. The matter was heard by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Lieutenant-Governor's actions in withdrawing the Minister's commission were subject to judicial review, and whether the Premier's advice to the Lieutenant-Governor to withdraw the commission was similarly reviewable. Relatedly, the court considered whether the Lieutenant-Governor or the Premier owed an obligation of procedural fairness to the Minister, particularly in light of an independent investigation into the alleged misconduct. The court also examined whether a duty of care was owed by the government to the Minister in the conduct of the investigation, and whether Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 had any application.

The Court of Appeal held that the Lieutenant-Governor's acts, in exercising executive power under the *Constitution Act 1902* (NSW), were not subject to judicial review. It reasoned that the withdrawal of a commission from a Minister is an exercise of executive power at the pleasure of the Crown, and such decisions are political in nature and therefore non-justiciable. Consequently, neither the Lieutenant-Governor nor the Premier had an obligation to afford procedural fairness to the Minister in relation to the withdrawal of the commission. The court also found that no duty of care was owed by the government to the Minister in the circumstances of the investigation, deeming it a novel category of claim that lacked coherence with established legal principles.

The Court of Appeal answered "No" to the questions concerning the justiciability of the Lieutenant-Governor's and Premier's actions and the existence of an obligation of procedural fairness. The proceedings were directed to be brought in short minutes of order to dispose of the matter as far as possible, with further argument to be heard on consequential orders, the joinder of a Ms Sanger as a party, and issues of parliamentary privilege.