Samandi v Legal Aid New South Wales [2020] NSWCATAD 114

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Samandi v Legal Aid New South Wales [2020] NSWCATAD 114 Hearing dates: On the papers. Date of orders: 28 April 2020 Decision date: 28 April 2020 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: Emeritus Prof G D Walker, Senior Member Decision: Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – jurisdiction – dismissal – implied power. Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Review Act 2013 (NSW) Legal Aid Commission Act 1979 (NSW) Cases Cited: Clean Ocean Foundation Inc v Environment Protection Authority [2003] VCAT 320; DYH v Public Guardian [2019] NSWCATAD 211; Karmez v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 149; Re Boulton; ex parte Construction Forestry Mining and Engineering Union (1998) 73 ALJR 129. Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Ali Samandi (Applicant) Legal Aid New South Wales (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: No Appearance for Applicant Legal Aid New South Wales (Respondent) File Number(s): 2020/00021666 Publication restriction: Nil

Reasons for decision 1. The applicant Mr Ali Samandi applied to this tribunal on 20 January 2020 for review of a decision to decline to investigate his claims that the legal representatives he was assigned by Legal Aid were incompetent, negligent and failed to follow his instructions. The application stated that the decision of which he sought review was communicated to him in a letter from Legal Aid's director of grants, Ms Jocelyn Flanagan, dated 28 November 2019. 2. The respondent objected to the application, applied for it to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction and filed certain written submissions in support of that motion. The tribunal on 24 March 2020 directed the applicant to serve on the tribunal and the respondent any material in response to the application for dismissal by 21 April 2020. 3. As the applicant in the substantive application is the respondent to the motion, and the respondent in the application is the applicant in the motion, these reasons will refer to the parties as Mr Samandi and Legal Aid, for the sake of clarity and to avoid confusion. 4. Legal Aid agreed that the motion be determined on the papers, that is, without an oral hearing. Mr Samandi was asked to include, in his submissions in response, any submission as to whether a hearing could be dispensed with and the matter determined on the basis of the documents provided. No submissions or other communications were received from him by the due date of 21 April 2020. The motion is thus to be determined on the papers and effectively ex parte. 5. No evidence was adduced by either party, Legal Aid relying on the correspondence and the written submissions.