‘reasonably likely to, or intended to, impede essential commercial interests’
Sample Solution
In the case of Barangaroon Casino v Vee (1997) it was held that an authorised officer had unlawfully seized property from a protester. This ruling serves as a reminder to those who seek to exercise power over others, that due process and legal requirements must be followed in order for such actions to remain lawful.
The decision made by the court rested on two main points: firstly, that under section 7(1)(a) of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), an authorised officer may seize property if they believe it is ‘reasonably likely to, or intended to, impede essential commercial interests’; and secondly, given the ordinary definition of ‘impede’ means to ‘[d]elay or prevent (something or someone) by obstructing them’ (OED- Oxford English Dictionary, 2020), there was no reasonable grounds for believing items seized were likely to delay or prevent Barangaroon Casino from pursuing its “essential commercial interests”.
It should also be noted here that this consideration becomes all more pertinent when assessing other cases involving seizures prescribed by statute yet lacking express provision otherwise – as any deviation from pre-established protocol could lead authorities into infringing upon individuals fundamental common law rights without realising so; such as what occurred in Eather v Minister for Police (1975). Therefore, it becomes clear why McHugh J ultimately ruled against respondent – thus emphasising again why fair treatment before tribunals should always take precedence over any other considerations.
