Ashby v Commonwealth of Australia [2021] FCA 40

Federal Court of Australia

Ashby v Commonwealth of Australia [2021] FCA 40 File number: NSD 784 of 2020

Judgment of: BROMWICH J

Date of judgment: 29 January 2021

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for review of decision to refuse application for an act of grace payment under s 65(1) of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (Cth) – where act of grace payment sought for the purpose of satisfying legal fees incurred in litigation relating to alleged conduct by a member of the Parliament of Australia – where previous litigation discontinued before trial by the applicant due to purported financial pressure – where the Member of Parliament was granted an act of grace payment in relation to his legal fees – whether there was an error by the delegate of the Minister in failing to assess the claim in support of the act of grace application that the applicant was a whistle-blower, alternatively that this claim was not assessed to the requisite level of detail – whether the delegate's finding that there was no basis for an argument that the previous act of grace payment to a litigant had an influence over the litigation was irrational – whether the delegate failed to have regard to relevant evidence that the proceeding was not highly politicised – whether there was any error in the delegation rendering the decision-making power of the delegate void – held: the delegate did not fail to assess the whistle-blower claims made by the applicant and was not required to give further or better consideration to these claims – the delegate's finding that the act of grace payment made to the Member of Parliament did not influence the litigation was not irrational and was not outside of the exercise of their jurisdiction – there was no failure to deal with evidence relating to the claims that the proceeding was highly politicised – the applicant's construction of the delegation power was not sensible or pragmatic and the conduct of the delegate in this case was clearly contemplated by the delegation's authorising Act – application dismissed with costs