(Supreme Court of Victoria) The court distinguished decisions which are judicial from those which are purely administrative: ‘The underlying principle of this form of estoppel is that parties who have had a dispute heard by a competent tribunal shall not be allowed to litigate the same issues in other tribunals. When the decision-making body is an administrative body not affording the opportunity of presenting evidence and argument . . there is no room for the operation of this principle . . It appears to me that both upon the general language of the authorities . . and upon . . principle . . no estoppel can arise from a decision of an administrative authority which cannot be classed either as ‘judicial’ or as a ‘tribunal’ and that an authority cannot be given to either of those classifications if it is one which is under no obligation to receive evidence or hear argument.’
Lush J
(1966) 9 FLR 152
Australia
Cited by:
Cited – Secretary of State for Education and Skills v Mairs Admn 25-May-2005
The appellant had been dismissed from the social services department of Haringey Borough Council, and her name placed on a list of persons unsuitable to work with children. She had been criticised in the statutory inquiry into the death of Victoria . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Administrative, Estoppel
Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.228499
