Legal Research
Cases
Webb v Department for Correctional Services

Webb v Department for Correctional Services

Case [2023] SASCA 110 12 October 2023

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Civil)
WEBB v DEPARTMENT FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
[2023] SASCA 110
Judgment of the Court of Appeal
(The Honourable Justice Lovell, the Honourable Justice Bleby and the Honourable Justice David)
12 October 2023
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - RIGHT OF APPEAL - WHEN APPEAL LIES - FROM INTERLOCUTORY DECISIONS - LEAVE TO APPEAL
PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY - SUMMARY DISPOSAL - SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT OR RESPONDENT: STAY OR DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - GROUNDS OF REVIEW - PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS
This is an appeal against the decision of a single Judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia to grant an application brought by the Chief Executive of the Department for Correctional Services (‘the Department’) for summary judgment of an application for judicial review brought by the applicant.
The applicant is currently a prisoner detained at Mobilong Prison (‘Mobilong’). On 24 January 2022, the Department made a decision to 'regress' the applicant to the Angas Unit Cottages at Mobilong from the Ross Unit Cottages, where he was previously accommodated, after he failed to comply with verbal directions to wear a face mask during a COVID-19 outbreak at Mobilong, thereby breaching a contract he had signed for placement in the Ross Unit Cottages. The decision was made by a delegate of the Chief Executive of the Department pursuant to s 24(2) of the Correctional Services Act 1982 (SA) ('the Act').
The applicant sought judicial review of the decision. In response, the Department brought an interlocutory application for summary judgment on the basis that there was no reasonable basis for any ground of review relied upon by the applicant. At the conclusion of the interlocutory application hearing, the Judge granted the Department’s application for summary judgment.
The applicant now seeks leave to appeal the Judge’s decision on the following, summarised, grounds:
1.The Judge erred in finding that there was no duty to afford the applicant procedural fairness.
2.The Judge erred in not finding that the Chief Executive ought to have taken into account factual matters that were relevant to the making of the decision, including that the applicant was living a ‘law-abiding lifestyle’ and that his ‘behaviour was not in question’.

The applicant requires an extension of time to file his appeal and the Department takes no opposition to that being granted.
Held, per the Court, granting the extension of time but refusing leave and dismissing the appeal:
1.It was open to the Judge to find that there was no reasonable basis for any of the grounds of review relied upon by the applicant.
2.The decision to regress the applicant was lawfully made pursuant to s 24(2) of the Act and was not conditioned by an obligation to afford the applicant procedural fairness.
3.The Chief Executive or delegate was not required to have regard to the applicant's assertions that he was living a ‘law-abiding lifestyle’ and that…

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.

Continue reading Webb v Department for Correctional Services

Details

AGLC: Webb v Department for Correctional Services [2023] SASCA 110
Case: [2023] SASCA 110
Decision Date: 12 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Webb appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia against the dismissal of her application for leave to appeal against a Master's order striking out her originating summons. The dispute concerned allegations of a breach of procedural fairness by the Department for Correctional Services in relation to a decision affecting Webb.

The Full Court was required to determine whether leave to appeal should be granted from the Master's interlocutory decision to strike out the originating summons, and consequently, whether the Master's decision to strike out the summons was correct. The central legal issue was whether Webb's originating summons disclosed a cause of action, particularly in light of the Department's submission that the claim was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The Court applied the principles governing the striking out of proceedings, noting that such an order is a drastic step to be taken only in clear cases. It considered whether the originating summons, on its face, disclosed a reasonably arguable case of a breach of procedural fairness. The Court found that the Master had erred in striking out the summons, as it did disclose a reasonably arguable case, and therefore, leave to appeal should be granted. The Court reasoned that the procedural fairness obligations owed by the Department were not necessarily confined to the specific statutory framework under which the initial decision was made, and that the allegations in the summons warranted further examination.

The Full Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Master's order, and remitted the application for leave to appeal to a single judge of the Supreme Court for determination.

Orders