The Court of Appeal held that a Commissioner exercising power under s 34(3) of the LEC Act is not required to evaluate all material filed with the Court, consider the public interest, or test expert opinions against competing evidence; rather, the Commissioner need only satisfy herself that jurisdictional constraints are met, and may do so in reliance on material provided by the parties for that purpose, provided nothing on its face undermines its reliability. The Court also held that a consent authority retains power under ss 37-38 of the EPA Regulation to approve amendments to a DA after refusal where the DA is subject to appeal proceedings, and that the Commissioner likewise has power to approve such amendments under s 39(2) of the LEC Act and s 8.14(1) of the EPA Act. Non-party objectors have no entitlement to participate in conciliation conferences, to be informed of changes in a party's position during conciliation, or to have their submissions independently evaluated by the Commissioner beyond what is required to satisfy jurisdictional constraints.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.