IKL26 v Operator, National Redress Scheme [2026] FCA 1185 (Link to JADE).
In the original determination, the delegate accepted the applicant’s statement that the abusers were members of the Freemasons, but said that the Freemasons were not responsible for one of the abusers, her grandfather, having contact with her, and it was unclear how the other two abusers’ membership of the Freemasons caused the institution to be responsible for them having contact with the applicant.
In a review determination, the delegate stated that he relied upon the applicant’s submissions which referred to specific aspects of the abuse that were said to be indicative of and related to the symbolism and ritual of the Freemasons, said to be relevant to whether the Freemasons were “responsible for the abuse” under s 15(4)(e) of the Redress Act. The delegate did not, however, engage with the applicant’s submissions as to how the Freemasons were said to be “responsible for the abuse”. Nor did he engage with the applicant’s argument that the symbolism described as part of the abuse meant that it was in connection with the Freemasons’ activities, and therefore the Freemasons was the institution responsible for the abuse.
The respondent characterised conceded errors referred to at [14] as either a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction, or alternatively as a denial of procedural fairness, which are errors of the kind attracting the Court’s jurisdiction to grant certiorari and mandamus under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).
The court agreed and a writ of certiorari was issued quashing the review determination. A writ of mandamus was also issued requiring the respondent to determine the review of the original application according to law.
[BillMaddensWordpress #2571]