Woodward v Loadman (No 2)

Case [2008] NTSC 6

Woodward & Anor v Loadman & Anor (No 2) [2008] NTSC 6

PARTIES:WOODWARD, Lucinda

and

BRADDY, Vicki

v

LOADMAN, David

and

MINDIL BEACH SUNSET MARKETS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING GENERAL JURISDICTION

FILE NOS:SC 45 of 2007 (20711094)

LA 6 of 2007 (20625162)

DELIVERED:  12 FEBRUARY 2008

HEARING DATE:  6 FEBRUARY 2008

JUDGMENT OF:  OLSSON AJ

CATCHWORDS:

JUDICIAL REVIEW -- APPEALS -- ORDER IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI -- MAGISTRATE

Order in the nature of certiorari against Local Court -- Originating motion seeking certiorari brought and argued without knowledge of privative provision in Local Court Act -- Impugned order of the Local Court based on breach of natural justice -- Order in nature of certiorari recalled and vacated

Local Court Act (NT) s35

JUDICIAL REVIEW -- NATURAL JUSTICE -- DECLARATORY RELIEF -- JURISDICTION

Consideration of standing of applicants to seek alternative declaratory relief -- Legal effect of order made in breach of natural justice -- Whether proposed declaratory relief available and appropriate in circumstances -- Appropriate form of declaration -- Declaration that impugned order did not accord natural justice -- Jurisdiction of Magistrate had constructively not been exercised

Followed
Ainsworth and Another v Criminal Justice Commission (1991-1992) 175 CLR 564
Craig v The State of South Australia (1994-1995) 184 CLR 163
Dixon v The Commonwealth (1981) 55 FLR 34
Plaintiff S157/2002 v The Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 211 CLR 476
Re Refugee Tribunal and Anor; ex parte AALA (2000) 204 CLR 82

Applied
Police and The State of South Australia v Lymberopoulos and Others [2007] SASC 247
Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40

Considered
Calvin v Carr [1980] AC 574
Director of Public Prosecutions v Gursel Ozakca and Anor (2006) NSWSC 1425
Plenty v Seventh-Day Adventist Church of Port Pirie (1986) 43 SASR 121  O’Brien v Northern Territory of Australia (2003) 12 NTLR 218
R v Chairman of General Sessions at Hamilton; ex parte Atterby [1959] VR 800

Referred to
Craig v Workers Compensation Tribunal (2004) 90 SASR 490
Dimes v Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 HLC 759
In re Racal Communications Ltd [1981] AC 374
Kuek v Wellens [2000] VSC 326
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597
R v Sagacia and Others; ex parte Katelaris (1990) 99 FLR 439
Underhill v Murden (2007) NSWSC 761

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellants:W Piper

Plaintiffs:W Piper

Respondent/1st Defendant:           W Priestley

Respondent/2nd Defendant:          G Clift

Solicitors:

Appellants:Pipers

Plaintiffs:Pipers

Respondent/1st Defendant:           Solicitor for the Northern Territory

Respondent/2nd Defendant:          De Silva Hebron

Judgment category classification:    A

Judgment ID Number:  Ols200801

Number of pages:  14

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

Woodward & Anor v Loadman & Anor (No 2) [2008] NTSC 6

Nos. SC 45 of 2007 (20711094) & LA 6 of 2007 (20625162)

BETWEEN:

LUCINDA WOODWARD

AND:

VICKI BRADDY

Appellants

AND:

DAVID LOADMAN

First Respondent

AND:

MINDIL BEACH SUNSET MARKETS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED

Second Respondent

CORAM:     OLSSON AJ

REASONS…

Continue reading Woodward v Loadman (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Woodward v Loadman (No 2) [2008] NTSC 6
Case
[2008] NTSC 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Woodward v Loadman (No 2) involves an appeal against an order of the Local Court in Australia, which was challenged on the grounds that it breached the principles of natural justice. The appeal was brought by Woodward and Loadman, who sought an order in the nature of certiorari to quash the Local Court's decision. The dispute arose out of an order made by the Local Court that dismissed the applicants' application and awarded costs against them. The applicants argued that the decision was made without affording them a fair opportunity to present their case, thereby breaching natural justice.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicants had standing to seek declaratory relief and whether such relief was appropriate given the breach of natural justice. The applicants contended that the Local Court's order was invalid because it was made without regard to the principles of natural justice, resulting in a jurisdictional error. The court had to determine if the proposed declaratory relief was available and if it would be an appropriate remedy in the circumstances. The applicants sought a declaration that the Local Court's order did not accord them natural justice and that the jurisdiction of the magistrate had not been exercised constructively in relation to that order.

The court found that the applicants were indeed entitled to seek declaratory relief, as the breach of natural justice by the Local Court caused them harm. It was held that the superior Courts have inherent power to grant such relief, provided the applicant has a real interest and the declaration will have a practical consequence. The court determined that the nature of the applicants' claim and the seriousness of the procedural unfairness justified the exercise of the court's discretion to grant declaratory relief. The appropriate form of declaration was that the Local Court's order did not accord natural justice, and therefore, the jurisdiction of the magistrate had not been constructively exercised as to that order.

The court ordered that the originating motion be amended to claim, in the alternative, declaratory relief of the specified nature. The court declared that the Local Court's order did not accord the applicants natural justice and that the jurisdiction of the magistrate had constructively not been exercised in relation to that order. The court reserved the question of further costs pending further submissions from the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) That the originating motion in matter SC 45 of 2007 be amended so as to claim, in the alternative, declaratory relief of the nature specified in the summons filed in those proceedings on 12 December 2007.

(2) That this Court declares that, having regard to the attendant circumstances, the making by the first defendant on 21 February 2007 in Matter 20625162 in the Local Court at Darwin of an order striking out the originating application in that matter and the associated order for costs did not accord the plaintiffs in that matter natural justice. Accordingly, it further declares that the jurisdiction of the learned magistrate has constructively not been exercised as to that order.

I will hear the parties as to the question of the further costs of these proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Ainsworth is an important authority for present purposes. To paraphrase and adapt the language of Brennan J (as he then was), where an official entity purportedly exercising a statutory function which requires it to observe the rules of natural justice breaches those rules causing damage to some person, prima facie, that person is entitled to a declaration that the action of the relevant entity has occurred in breach of its duty to observe the rules of natural justice. As the judges in that case pointed out (p 581-582), the superior Courts have inherent power to grant declaratory relief, which will be exercised provided that the person seeking it has a real interest and the declaration will have some practical consequence. (See also the discussion of the relevant principles by Gillard J in Kuek v Wellens [2000] VSC 326).Conclusion In the instant case the issues raised by the appellants go direct to conduct on the part of the learned magistrate which had the practical effect of negating their ability, in the relevant proceedings, to seek to secure statutory remedies that were plainly open to them if they could establish the evidentiary basis to justify those remedies. The proceedings focused on what was asserted to be, in effect, a wrongful denial by the MBSMA of the appellants' ability and right to conduct commercial activities at the Mindil Beach Sunset Markets. In my opinion, the subject matter and nature of the appellants' claim to relief and the serious nature of the denial of procedural fairness well justify the exercise of a discretion to grant appropriate declaratory relief. The only question that remains is the form in which any declaratory order ought to be expressed. Where, in the making of a decision by a tribunal other than a court, there has been a clear breach of the rules of natural justice by reason of procedural unfairness and pre-judgment, the practical and legal effect is normally that there has been failure to comply with a condition of the exercise of the decision-making power and thus jurisdictional error (see per Gleeson CJ in PlaintiffS157/2002 v The Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 211 CLR 476 at 490), or, to employ the expression used by Gaudron and Gummow JJ in Re Refugee Tribunal and Another; ex parte AALA (2000) 204 CLR 82 at 87-99, “excess of jurisdiction”. In Dixon v The Commonwealth (1981) 55 FLR 34 at 45, 48 the Full Bench of the Federal Court simply described the relevant impugned decision as being “invalid and ineffectual”. Such a jurisdictional error necessarily vitiates the impugned decision, because the order has not been made in the proper exercise of the relevant jurisdiction. Where the remedy of certiorari is technically available, the purpose of the remedy is essentially to expunge from the record a decision or order that is patently invalid and of no effect, by reason of jurisdictional error. In the course of his speech in the well-known case of Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 at 80, Lord Reid commented:"… there was considerable argument whether in the result the watch committee's decision is void or merely voidable. Time and again in the cases I have cited it has been stated that a decision given without regard to the principles of natural justice is void, and that was expressly decided in Wood v Woad L.R. 9 Ex 190. I see no reason to doubt these authorities. The body with the power to decide cannot lawfully proceed to make a decision until it has afforded the person affected a proper opportunity to state his case."I do not take that reasoning to be inconsistent with what was said in the joint judgment of the High Court in Craig v The State of South Australia (1994-1995) 184 CLR 163 at 176 et seq.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.