Re the State Administrative Tribunal; Ex Parte McCOURT

(2007) 34 WAR 342; [2007] WASCA 125

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Prerogative writs
3. › Certiorari
4. › Record for purposes of certiorari
5. › Whether tribunal's reasons form part of the record
6. › Whether statutory requirement to give reasons incorporates reasons into record
7. › State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), ss 77, 78, 105
1. Administrative Law
2. › Prerogative writs
3. › Certiorari and mandamus
4. › Jurisdictional error
5. › Distinction between inferior courts and administrative tribunals
6. › Anomalous tribunal with power to decide questions of law
7. › Whether misconstruction of statute constitutes jurisdictional error
8. › Whether misconception of nature of function or extent of powers
1. Administrative Law
2. › Tribunals
3. › State Administrative Tribunal
4. › Intervention in proceedings
5. › Construction of s 37(3) of SAT Act
6. › Whether intervention principally concerned with public interest
7. › Whether discretion unconfined
8. › Distinction between intervention and joinder as party
9. › State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), ss 37, 38
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Relevant and irrelevant considerations
4. › Whether failure to take into account relevant considerations constitutes jurisdictional error
5. › Precondition to exercise of jurisdiction
6. › Craig v South Australia test applied to anomalous tribunal

Quick Take

The reasons of the State Administrative Tribunal do not form part of the record for the purposes of certiorari, meaning non-parties cannot challenge non-jurisdictional errors of law appearing in SAT's reasons. The discretion to grant leave to intervene under s 37(3) of the SAT Act is unconfined and is not principally concerned with the public interest; private interests may ground an application for intervention. However, a misconstruction of s 37(3) that results in an unjustified limitation on the discretion does not constitute jurisdictional error where the decision-maker does not misconceive the nature of the function being performed or the extent of powers.