Admin Law Assignment of 2013-- Judicial review application

3 Found helpful • 9 Pages • Essays / Projects • Year: Pre-2021 • Previously uploaded under: MLL324 - Administrative Law

INTHEFEDERALCOURTOFAUSTRALIA No. 323of2013 BETWEEN: The Athlete Applicant First Respondent The CEO of Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority The Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel Second Respondent Part I: PUBLICATION 1.1 These submissions are in a fromsuitable for publication on the Internet. Part II: STATEMENT OF ISSUES 2.1 Issue1: Was agency relationship existed between the first respondent and UCI (International Cycling Union)? 2.2 Issue2: Did UCI breach the Result Management Regulation of UNI (International Cycling Union) Anti Doping Regulations and the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC)? 2.3 Issue 3: Does Federal Court of Australia have jurisdiction to review any breaches made by UCI? 2.4 Issue 4:Was the decision made by the first respondent involve the denial of natural justice? 2.5 Issue 5: Was the second respondent made the decision under dictation ofAustralian Sports Anti-Doping Authority? PART III: ARGUMENT 3.1 The applicant can seek Judicial review under the Constitution. 3.11 The decisions made by the first respondent and the second respondent should be reviewed by the Federal court under the constitution, which provides that the High Court shall haveoriginal jurisdiction in matters "in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party",1and "in matters which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth."2 3.12 Application for „constitutional‟ remedies is limited to claims where relief is sought „against an officer of the Commonwealth.‟ In this case, the first respondent is to be appointed by the Minister, by written instrument, on a full-time basis,3whereas each members of the second respondent is to be appointed by the Minister, by written instrument, on a part-time basis.4As performing the functions conferred on them by the Act, the first respondentand the second respondent are paid by Commonwealth.5 Here is an institutional nexus between the respondent and the government. As result, they are the officers of the Commonwealth. 3.12 A „matter‟ is present only where there is a justiciable controversy.6 The issues in dispute of this case are proce

This document is 20 Exchange Credits