MMR - PEP11 legal case discussion

Since the lodgement of the court case, these threads have been inundated with a proliferation of what I consider false and misleading posts about the case. My response to these posts is as follows:-

1. Justice Jackson may throw out the case.

No, that will not happen. In the first instance, Asset was required to establish it's standing and provide details of it's claim. It has done so. Once established, and deemed not vexatious, the case proceeds.

2. Asset's case has no merit

A brief perusal of grounds* for judicial review indicates Asset has significant claims under impartiality, legaitlity, and fairness, as follows:-

(a) apprehended bias
(b) pecuniary interest
(c) acting under dictation
(d) ignoring relevant material
(e) incorrect interpretation of the law
(f) incorrect application of the law
(g) failure to consider relevant information
(h) erroneous finding
(i) unreasonableness
(j) inflexible application of policy

3. that remedies are not beneficial to Asset

Remedies available include:-
1. Certiorari
2. Prohibition
3. Mandamus
4. Injunction
5. Declaration

*Source - Paper presented by Mark Robinson SC (see attached)

2014-MAR-Paper-Judicial-Review-for-ALA-National-Conference-25-October-2014.pdf