The Ombudsman v Robert Koopman - [2002] NSWSC 1203

CITATION: The Ombudsman v Robert Koopman [2002] NSWSC 1203

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
Adminstrative Law List

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 30060/02

HEARING DATE(S): 13 December 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 13 December 2002

PARTIES :

The Ombudsman (Plaintiff)
Robert Koopman (First Defendant)
Administrative Decisions Tribunal (Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Administrative Decisions Tribunal

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 023005

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : O'Connor DCJ

COUNSEL : G Furness (Plaintiff)
P Singleton (Defendants)

SOLICITORS: Sparke Helmore (Plaintiff)
IV Knight Crown Solicitor (Defendants)

CATCHWORDS: Proceudre - courts & judges - proceedings to prohibit proceedings in Administrative Decisions Tribunal - assignment of business - Court of Appeal or Administrative Law List

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997,
s 119
Ombudsman Act 1974
Supreme Court Act, ss 48, 51

CASES CITED: Daykin v SAS Trustee Corporation [2001] NSWSC 58, 51 NSWLR 328
Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee [2002] NSWCA 224
NSW Breeding & Racing v Administrative Decisions Tribunal [2001] NSWSC 494, 53 NSWLR 559
Puglisi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal Appeal Panel [2001] NSWCCA 298, 52 NSWLR 350

DECISION: Proceedings to be removed into the Court of Appeal.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

Dunford J

Friday, 13 December 2003

30060/02 The Ombudsman v Robert Koopman & anor
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: In these proceedings, the plaintiff seeks declaratory and prerogative relief to prevent the first defendant proceeding against him in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, who is the second defendant, having regard to prohibitions on such proceedings which it is claimed are contained in the relevant legislation, the Ombudsman Act 1974.

2 When the proceedings commenced by the first defendant came before the Tribunal, a preliminary objection to such proceedings was taken by the plaintiff, but that objection was overruled and the President of the Tribunal who was hearing the matter ruled that he had power to proceed. It is in respect of that ruling that these proceedings are brought.

3 The President of the Tribunal who overruled the objection was His Honour Judge O'Connor, a Judge of the District Court of New South Wales, and the question therefore arises whether these proceedings should have been commenced in this List of this Division or in the Court of Appeal.

4 In Daykin v SAS Trustee Corporation [2001] NSWSC 58, 51 NSWLR 328, I reviewed the relevant legislation and concluded at para [5]:

Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act

Supreme Court Act

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read The Ombudsman v Robert Koopman and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] NSWSC 1203
Decision Date: 13 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Ombudsman initiated proceedings against Robert Koopman, seeking to prohibit a proceeding brought by Koopman in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. The dispute centres around the assignment of a business, a matter which the Ombudsman believed should be heard by the Court of Appeal or the Administrative Law List of the Supreme Court. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Administrative Decisions Tribunal had jurisdiction over the matter or whether it should be transferred to the Court of Appeal or the Administrative Law List of the Supreme Court. The Ombudsman argued that the matter involved significant administrative law issues and therefore required the expertise and procedural robustness of the Administrative Law List. The court had to determine the appropriate forum for resolving disputes of this nature and whether it was in the interests of justice for the proceedings to be transferred.

The court found that the matter raised complex issues of administrative law and that the expertise of the Administrative Law List was necessary for its proper adjudication. The court considered the nature of the dispute, the precedents concerning the assignment of business, and the importance of having a specialised list to handle such cases. It was held that the Administrative Decisions Tribunal did not have the requisite jurisdiction or the appropriate procedural framework to deal with the matter. Consequently, the court granted the Ombudsman's application to prohibit the proceedings in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal and ordered that the matter be transferred to the Administrative Law List of the Supreme Court.

Orders