Loading PDF...
This document is 1.4 MB. Do you want to load it?
History of this document
28 October 1998 this version
Commenced
20 October 1998
Assented to
Cited documents 0
Documents citing this one 14
Gazette
7Judgment
7|
Reported
|
|
Leave to appeal costs order dismissed; high court properly exercised discretion in awarding punitive personal costs against applicant.
Costs — personal and punitive costs against public officials — appellate restraint in reviewing discretionary costs orders — interference only for material misdirection — conduct amounting to recklessness, vexatious litigation or abuse of process may justify punitive costs; Biowatch principles not engaged where law is not challenged.
|
|
Reported
Whether the Public Protector lawfully found the President breached the Executive Ethics Code over CR17 campaign donations.
Executive Members’ Ethics Act and Executive Ethics Code – interpretation of ‘wilfully mislead’ – Public Protector’s investigative powers under section 182 and Members Act – distinction between state affairs and internal party campaigns – duty to disclose campaign donations as personal benefit – audi alteram principle and disclosure of adverse evidence – limits on Public Protector’s remedial and supervisory orders; remit of constitutional challenge to Code.
|
|
Reported
Director‑General’s closure of a refugee reception office was unlawful, irrational and required restoration plus supervisory reporting.
Administrative law – Refugees Act – closure of Refugee Reception Office – duty to consult interested parties before deciding to close – requirement of rationality and decision‑making free of material mistake of fact; contempt/non‑compliance with court orders – appropriateness of supervisory/structural relief and reporting obligations; access to asylum procedures and protection of vulnerable asylum seekers.
|
|
Public Protector’s reports set aside for jurisdictional overreach, procedural unfairness, reliance on undisclosed intelligence, and inadmissible hearsay.
Public Protector — scope of powers under s 6(4) Public Protector Act — referral to investigative authorities permissible under s 6(4)(c)(ii); jurisdictional limits — may not investigate POCA/PCCA offences beyond incidental referral; natural justice — audi alteram partem requires notice and meaningful opportunity to respond, particularly where FIC material is relied upon; administrative fairness — published report is final; evidence — averments as to decision‑maker's mind tendered by deputies may be inadmissible hearsay and struck out.
|
|
Reported
The applicant’s colonialism tweets were constitutionally protected; the Public Protector’s contrary findings were materially flawed and set aside.
Administrative law – Review of Public Protector’s report – Freedom of expression – s 16(1) and s 16(2)(b) – Correct interpretive approach (objective meaning, intent and imminence) – Rationality and material error of law – Executive Members’ Ethics Code and s 136 – Remedial action reviewable and set aside.
|
|
Public Protector’s finding irrational where investigation ignored the question’s timeframe and relied on irrelevant evidence.
Administrative law – review of Public Protector’s report – interpretation of parliamentary question – relevance of "since taking office" – irrationality where investigation targets period outside question and relies on irrelevant evidence – proper test for wilfully misleading legislature.
|