TANGENT NOMINEES PTY LTD -v- EDWARDS & ANOR [2006] WASC 45

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2006] WASC 45
Case No:	SJA:1096/2005	Heard:	22 FEBRUARY 2006
Coram:	MCKECHNIE J	Delivered:	22/02/06
No of pages:	3	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	TANGENT NOMINEES PTY LTD GEOFFREY PETER EDWARDS ELIZABETH MARIE EDWARDS
Catchwords:	Administrative law Grant of leave to appeal by State Administrative Tribunal Whether able to grant leave on some grounds only
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Sparks v Bellotti [1981] WAR 65 Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : TANGENT NOMINEES PTY LTD -v- EDWARDS & ANOR [2006] WASC 45 CORAM : MCKECHNIE J HEARD : 22 FEBRUARY 2006 DELIVERED : 22 FEBRUARY 2006 FILE NO/S : SJA 1096 of 2005 BETWEEN : TANGENT NOMINEES PTY LTD

Appellant

AND

GEOFFREY PETER EDWARDS

ELIZABETH MARIE EDWARDS

Respondents

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MR C RAYMOND (SENIOR MEMBER)

Citation : TANGENT NOMINEES PTY LTD and EDWARDS & ANOR [2005] WASAT 119

File No : VR 184 of 2005

Catchwords:

Administrative law - Grant of leave to appeal by State Administrative Tribunal - Whether able to grant leave on some grounds only

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr S O Alteruthemeyer

Respondents : Mr P A Nevin

Solicitors:

Appellant : Morgan Alteruthemeyer

Respondents : Taylor Smart

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

Sparks v Bellotti [1981] WAR 65
Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 MCKECHNIE J: I am indebted to both counsel for the careful submissions they have put forward which identify very clearly the opposing arguments to be made.

2 The issue in this appeal is whether, in determining a grant of leave to appeal under the Builders Registration Act 1939 (WA) s 41, the State Administrative Tribunal can grant leave on some grounds only.

3 The appellant submits that once leave is granted it is entitled to a hearing de novo and the grounds of the hearing cannot be limited. The appellant relies on the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) s 27.

4 The submission, however, cannot be accepted. By requiring a grant of leave Parliament necessarily invests power in the State Administrative Tribunal to limit the grant of leave to grounds or matters upon which the State Administrative Tribunal considers leave should be granted in accordance with the ordinary principles: Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285.

5 While the State Administrative Tribunal does not possess the inherent jurisdiction of a court it does have inherent power to control its processes in a manner consistent with statute: Sparks v Bellotti [1981] WAR 65. The exercise of the grant of leave is a power given to the State Administrative Tribunal by the Builders Registration Act s 41, not by the State Administrative Tribunal Act, and is anterior to the exercise of power to review a reviewable decision under s 27 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act.

6 There is no inconsistency in granting leave to review a decision on some grounds only and the review of that decision de novo on the grounds upon which leave is granted. In my opinion, the senior member was correct in his conclusion and orders. The appeal is dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tangent Nominees Pty Ltd, the appellant, sought to appeal a decision of the State Administrative Tribunal, which was in turn a review of a decision made under the Builders Registration Act 1939 (WA). The respondents, Geoffrey Peter Edwards and Elizabeth Marie Edwards, defended the Tribunal's decision. The central issue before the Supreme Court of Western Australia was whether the State Administrative Tribunal had the authority to grant leave to appeal on specific grounds only, rather than granting a full de novo hearing.

The appellant contended that once leave to appeal was granted, it should entitle the appellant to a comprehensive hearing on all grounds, without limitation. This argument was grounded in the provisions of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), specifically section 27, which sets out the manner in which the tribunal should conduct its review. The respondents, however, maintained that the tribunal had the discretion to limit the grounds on which leave to appeal was granted, in line with statutory authority and common law principles.

The court examined the statutory framework and case law to determine the scope of the tribunal's powers. The court found that the tribunal did indeed possess the authority to limit the grounds of the appeal, as this power was inherent in the grant of leave itself. The court ruled that this was consistent with the ordinary principles of administrative law, as articulated in Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285. Furthermore, the court acknowledged that while the tribunal did not have the inherent jurisdiction of a superior court, it did have the power to control its processes in a manner that was consistent with the statutes that governed it, as established in Sparks v Bellotti [1981] WAR 65. Consequently, the court concluded that there was no inconsistency in granting leave to appeal on specific grounds while still allowing for a de novo review of the decision on those grounds.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the State Administrative Tribunal, dismissing the appeal. The court found that the tribunal had correctly exercised its discretion in limiting the grounds of the appeal, and this did not undermine the integrity of the review process.

Tangent Nominees Pty Ltd v Edwards & Anor

TANGENT NOMINEES PTY LTD -v- EDWARDS & ANOR [2006] WASC 45

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established