Agricultural Societies Council of NSW v Christie

(2016) 340 ALR 560; [2016] NSWCA 331

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Availability of certiorari
4. › Private or domestic tribunal
5. › Whether decision of private disciplinary committee amenable to relief in the nature of certiorari
6. › Whether committee exercising public or statutory function
7. › Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69
1. Associations and Clubs
2. › Domestic tribunals
3. › Jurisdiction of courts to interfere
4. › Decision of disciplinary committee of private organisation
5. › Whether court may grant declaration or injunction absent contractual or other private law right
6. › Whether adverse effect on livelihood and reputation sufficient to found jurisdiction
1. Administrative Law
2. › Natural justice
3. › Apprehended bias
4. › Domestic tribunal
5. › Whether member of disciplinary committee who selected horse for testing and oversaw swabbing procedure had interest akin to prosecutor
6. › Whether fair-minded observer might reasonably apprehend decision-maker might not apply impartial mind
1. Administrative Law
2. › Natural justice
3. › Apprehended bias
4. › Domestic tribunal
5. › Extent to which apprehended bias rule applies to private or consensual tribunals
6. › Whether rule excluded where apprehension arises from past associations between tribunal members and association members

Quick Take

A person aggrieved by the decision of a private disciplinary body (such as a sporting or community organisation) cannot obtain certiorari or other judicial review remedies unless the body exercises a statutory or governmental function. Private law remedies such as declaration or injunction require an underlying contractual or other private law right — the mere adverse effect on livelihood or reputation is insufficient to found jurisdiction. The Datafin principle (judicial review of private bodies exercising governmental regulatory functions) remains of uncertain status in Australia and does not extend to bodies that do not exercise governmental functions. Where a member of a domestic tribunal has performed administrative or ministerial functions in the process leading to a disciplinary hearing (such as selecting a subject for testing and communicating results), that involvement is not akin to that of a prosecutor and does not give rise to apprehended bias.