Although this is not a decision in relation to the Education and Care Services National Law, it does provide some guidance in relation to Regulatory Authorities imposing discretionary conditions on provider or service approvals (i.e. under sections 19(1), 23(2), 51(5)(b) or 55(2)).
In this case, heard by the NSW Supreme Court, Mr Simiana) sought judicial review of a decision made by Harness Racing New South Wales (HRNSW) to impose conditions on his trainer’s and driver’s licence. He challenged the decision on a number of grounds including lack of procedural fairness and unreasonableness of the decision (based on administrative law principles). The Court found in favour of Mr Simiana holding that:
In this case, heard by the NSW Supreme Court, Mr Simiana) sought judicial review of a decision made by Harness Racing New South Wales (HRNSW) to impose conditions on his trainer’s and driver’s licence. He challenged the decision on a number of grounds including lack of procedural fairness and unreasonableness of the decision (based on administrative law principles). The Court found in favour of Mr Simiana holding that:
- procedural fairness required that HRNSW seek submissions or comment from Mr Simiana before imposing conditions. However, there was no opportunity given to make submissions concerning the practicality of compliance with any conditions, (let alone the ones that were proposed) or his capacity to comply with them. (paras. 61-75).
- the content of some of the conditions were unreasonable, in that they were “capricious”, “irrational”, and “lacking in evident or intelligible justification”. (para.112).
No comments:
Post a Comment