Sir Julius Chan v The Ombudsman Commission [1998] PNGLR 171

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Citation: [1998] PNGLR 171
• Date: 15 July 1998
• Year: 1998

Full Title: Sir Julius Chan v The Ombudsman Commission [1998] PNGLR 171

National Court: Woods J

Judgment Delivered: 15 July 1998

1 Administrative Law—judicial review of administrative acts—general principles—review of an Ombudsman Commission investigation—nature of an investigation—status of preliminary report—directions for the review.

2 Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 All ER 935, Kekedo v Burns Philp (PNG) Ltd [1988–89] PNGLR 122, O'Reilly v Mackman [1982] 3 All ER 1124 and Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1947] 2 All ER 680 referred to

___________________________

Woods J: The Applicant is seeking judicial review of an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman Commission of PNG into various matters including circumstances surrounding the purchase of a property called 'The Observatory' in Cairns Australia by the Public Officers Superannuation Fund Board and associated transactions and arrangements. The applicant was the Prime Minister of PNG at some relevant times and his name has apparently been mentioned during the investigation. The Ombudsman Commission has prepared a preliminary report of its investigations and has apparently circulated that preliminary report to people whose names have been mentioned during the investigation. It is suggested that the reason this report was circulated to those people was to allow them to comment or make any statements to the Commission about the matters under investigation. The preliminary report was forwarded to the applicant and he was asked if he wished to say anything. At this stage I myself have not seen the report so I do not know in what context the applicant's name has come up during the investigation. However it seems that it is because of the way that the applicant has been mentioned in the report that this application for review has been made. The applicant is seeking review of the investigation on the basis that the preliminary report shows bias towards the applicant and there have been breaches of nature justice in the way the applicant has been mentioned in the report and therefore the applicant is seeking to have the investigation declared invalid.

As a...