Casey v Transport Appeal Boards & Anor [2007] NSWSC 485

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Casey v Transport Appeal Boards & Anor [2007] NSWSC 485

HEARING DATE(S) : 25 October 2006

JUDGMENT DATE : 15 May 2007

JURISDICTION : Common Law Administrative Law List

JUDGMENT OF : Simpson J

DECISION : Summons dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS : PRACTICE – jurisdiction of Supreme Court generally – supervisory jurisdiction over inferior domestic tribunal – application to review order of inferior domestic tribunal – whether uncertainty or ambiguity in order made – no occasion to exercise supervisory jurisdiction

LEGISLATION CITED : Transport Appeal Boards Act 1980

Paul Casey (Plaintiff) PARTIES : Transport Appeal Boards (First Defendant) Rail Corporation of New South Wales (Second Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 30024 of 2006

J Nolan (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : Submitting appearance (First Defendant) P Newall (Second Defendant)

McClellands (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : I V Knight, Crown Solicitor (First Defendant) Sparke Helmore (Second Defendant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Transport Appeal Boards

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : TD/8 of 2005

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : G Thompson (Vice-Chairman); B Phillips (Board Member); M Thompson (Board Member)

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION : 11 March 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

SIMPSON J

15 May 2007

30024/06 Paul Casey v Transport Appeal Boards & Anor

JUDGMENT 1 HER HONOUR: By summons filed on 14 February 2006 the plaintiff, Paul Casey, seeks orders in the nature of prerogative relief arising out of a decision of 11 March 2005 of the Transport Appeal Boards ("the Board"), which is the first named defendant but which has played no part in the proceedings and has filed a submitting appearance. The plaintiff contends that there is a second decision of the Board, which he also seeks to have reviewed, dated 16 November 2005. The primary application concerns the proper construction of the order made by the Board on 11 March 2005. The second application concerns the Board's refusal to re-open its decision in respect of that order for the purpose of its clarification. 2 The application arises in the following way.