Druett v Director-General of Community Services

Case [2001] HCATrans 348


IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S103 of 2001

B e t w e e n -

GARRY DRUETT

Applicant

and

DIRECTOR‑GENERAL OF COMMUNITY SERVICES

Respondent

Application for expedition

GAUDRON J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY, 25 SEPTEMBER 2001, AT 10.20 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR G. DRUETT appeared in person.

MR G.W. MOORE:   I appear for the respondent, your Honour.  (instructed by I.V. Knight, Crown Solicitor for New South Wales)

HER HONOUR:   Now, Mr Moore, you do not oppose this?

MR MOORE:   No, we consent to it, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.  Mr Druett, it seems to me that this is a matter where it should be dealt with, at least in the interests of the family, very quickly.  But I should not like you to think thereby that that necessarily should give you hope as to the outcome.  I see you have been advised many times to get legal representation.

MR DRUETT:    I thought I had legal representation at the start, your Honour, and apparently I did not.  I was misled.

HER HONOUR:   Mr Moore, I take it an application has been filed in the Children’s Court.

MR MOORE:   Yes, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   And that is pending, is it?

MR MOORE:   Yes, your Honour, it is listed for hearing on a preliminary point on 25 October.

HER HONOUR:   Now, is there not some way Mr Druett can be got legal representation for that?

MR MOORE:   For the proceedings in the Children’s Court?

HER HONOUR:   Yes.

MR MOORE:   I can talk to Mr Druett to see whether he has made an approach to the Legal Aid Commission about that.  The difficulty is Legal Aid have been involved in the past and I understand from Mr Druett he has made numerous applications to them and they have been declined.

HER HONOUR:   But the Department comes up here represented by lawyers all the time.  Cannot the Department do something?

MR MOORE:   I will get some instructions, your Honour.  I will take your Honour’s comments on board and speak to the Department about what ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Are you with the Department of Community Services or with the State Crown Solicitor?

MR MOORE:   I am at the Bar.

HER HONOUR:   At the Bar?

MR MOORE:   Yes, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   You have been briefed.  The Department can brief a member of the independent Bar.

MR MOORE:   Yes, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   And this man is without representation.

MR MOORE:   Yes, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   I suggest at the end of these proceedings you take Mr Druett to the Bar Association and ask them whether there is something that can be done for Mr Druett.  Mr Druett, you will take with you – have you the letter – is it Dr Ireland?  Who is that letter – I have not the papers here.

MR DRUETT:   Dr Knight, I believe, is - - -

HER HONOUR:   Dr Knight. 

MR DRUETT:   - - - the pediatrician for my son.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.  Will you take Dr Knight’s letter with you.  Have you the original of that letter?

MR DRUETT:    Yes, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   Is he still treating your son?

MR DRUETT:   No, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   Take that letter with you.  What one is looking for, however, is representation in the Children’s Court, which is – when is that, Mr Druett?

MR DRUETT:   I believe it is 25 October or thereabouts.

HER HONOUR:   Now, ultimately, I think, Mr Druett, it is only fair to tell you, that it is almost certain that your rights will be determined in the Children’s Court, not in this Court, because this Court can only look at questions of law and what that means in terms of your application is it can only look at the question whether or not there was an appeal from the District Court to the Court of Appeal, which does not take you very far down the track at all.

MR DRUETT:   I guess I am contesting the factual findings - - -

HER HONOUR:   I know, but this Court does not do that sort of work.

MR DRUETT:   I have gone back to the Children’s Court in light of the response from the Crown - - -

HER HONOUR:   Yes, but this Court does not concern itself with factual findings.  We are, unfortunately, simply – we just simply look at legal issues; makes life very dull for us but that is all we do. 

I will expedite your case.  You can have either 23 November or 20 November.  Which would you prefer?

MR DRUETT:   Can I be advised what the 20th, the day?

HER HONOUR:   That is a Tuesday:  20 November is a Tuesday; 23 November is a Friday.

MR DRUETT:   Yes, the Tuesday would be, if that is possible.

HER HONOUR:   Very well.  I will expedite the matter.  I will make no order as to costs at all.  Mr Moore will take you to the Bar Association to see if you cannot be assisted with the Children’s Court proceedings.

I simply make the order for expedition and make no order as to costs.

AT 10.28 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

Details
AGLC
Druett v Director-General of Community Services [2001] HCATrans 348
Case
[2001] HCATrans 348
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Druett v Director-General of Community Services*, Gaudron J, sitting in chambers, considered an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant, Druett, sought to challenge the Director-General's decision to refuse to grant him a licence to operate a private nursing home. The dispute centred on whether the Director-General had acted reasonably and lawfully in refusing the licence.

The primary legal issue before Gaudron J was whether the Director-General had properly exercised their discretion under the relevant legislation when refusing the licence. This involved determining whether the Director-General had taken into account all relevant considerations and had not taken into account irrelevant considerations, and whether the decision was so unreasonable that it could not be supported by evidence.

Gaudron J's reasoning focused on the principles of administrative law, particularly the grounds for judicial review of administrative decisions. Her Honour examined the evidence before the Director-General and the reasons provided for the refusal. The legal principle applied was that administrative decision-makers must act within the bounds of their statutory powers and must not make decisions that are so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have arrived at them.

Gaudron J granted leave to appeal, finding that there was an arguable case that the Director-General's decision was affected by an error of law.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.