Legal Research
Cases
West Tamar Council v Leonard

West Tamar Council v Leonard

Link copied

Case Copied 19 October 2012 42 min read

Contents

On this page

[2012] TASSC 68

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: West Tamar Council v Leonard [2012] TASSC 68

PARTIES: WEST TAMAR COUNCIL

SMITH, Matthew
v
LEONARD, Gary
INTEGRITY COMMISSION

FILE NO/S:  321/2012
DELIVERED ON:  19 October 2012
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  6 September 2012
JUDGMENT OF:  Evans J

CATCHWORDS:

Administration Law – Judicial review – Generally – Declaration – Integrity Commission – Notice served by – Notice required the production of documents – Validity.

Integrity Commission Act 2009 (Tas), ss47(1)(c) and 92.
Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), s118.
Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1979) 143 CLR 499, applied.
Commissioner of Taxation v Citibank Ltd (1989) 20 FCR 403; MM v Australian Crime Commission [2007] FCA 2026; Commissioner of Taxation v Pilnara Pty Ltd (1999) 96 FCR 82, referred to.
Seven Network Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2004] FCAFC 267, (2004) 140 FCR 170; Singapore Airlines Ltd v ACCC [2009] FCAFC 136, (2009) 260 ALR 244, distinguished.
Aust Dig Administration Law [1001]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             First Plaintiff:  S B McElwaine
             Second Plaintiff:  S B McElwaine
             First Defendant:  P J Davis SC and B R McTaggart
             Second Defendant:   P J Davis SC and B R McTaggart
Solicitors:
             First Plaintiff:  Shaun McElwaine + Associates
             Second Plaintiff:  Shaun McElwaine + Associates
             First Defendant:  Crown Solicitor
             Second Defendant:   Crown Solicitor

Judgment Number: [2012] TASSC 68
Number of paragraphs: 66

Serial No 68/2012
File No 321/2012

WEST TAMAR COUNCIL and MATTHEW SMITH v GARY LEONARD and INTEGRITY COMMISSION

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EVANS J

19 October 2012

The plaintiffs seek a declaration that a notice to produce, expressed to be issued under the Integrity Commission Act 2009 (Tas) by the first defendant, Gary Leonard, to the second plaintiff, Matthew Smith, is invalid.

The notice is as follows:

"NOTICE TO PRODUCE
Section 47(1) Integrity Commission Act
Notice number: NPR11-0037/12/17
To: Mr Matt Smith
West Tamar Council
Eden Street, RIVERSIDE TAS 7250
I, Gary Leonard, having been appointed as an assessor pursuant to section 35(2) of the Integrity Commission Act 2009 ('the Act') in respect of a complaint made to the Integrity Commission, and exercising the powers of an investigator, hereby give you Notice under section 47(1)(c) of the Act directing you:
To produce to me, or any person assisting me, the records, information, materials or things in your custody or possession or under your control, as described in the Schedule to this Notice.
The records, information, materials or things as described in the Schedule, are to be produced to me at the Integrity Commission, Level 2 199 Macquarie Street Hobart, or such alternative location as might be agreed by me, at a time and date convenient to you, but no later than 5pm on 23 April 2012

The contact officer for this matter is Gary Leonard who may be contacted by telephone on (03) 62164450
DATED at Hobart this 11 day of April 2012
Gary Leonard
Principal Investigation Officer
Assessor
SCHEDULE
All…

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 West Tamar Council v Leonard 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: [2012] TASSC 68
Decision Date: 19 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of West Tamar Council versus Leonard, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of a notice served by the Integrity Commission, which demanded the production of documents. The council contested the notice, arguing that it was invalid. The court was required to ascertain whether the notice was legally sound and if it met the requisite standards for judicial review.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the notice served by the Integrity Commission was legally valid and complied with the necessary administrative law requirements. This included examining whether the notice adequately specified the documents requested and whether it was issued in accordance with the relevant legislation.

The court found that the notice served by the Integrity Commission was valid. It held that the notice sufficiently identified the documents sought and adhered to the statutory provisions. The court emphasised the importance of precise and clear documentation in administrative law to uphold the integrity of the process. As a result, the council's challenge to the notice was dismissed, and the notice was deemed valid.

The final orders of the court were that the notice served by the Integrity Commission was valid and enforceable. The council was required to produce the documents as requested, and the court dismissed the council's application for a declaration that the notice was invalid. This decision underscores the importance of compliance with administrative law requirements in ensuring the integrity of public processes.

Orders