Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board - [2012] FCA 1375

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board [2012] FCA 1375

Citation: Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board [2012] FCA 1375

Parties: RAOUL AGAPIS v PLUMBERS LICENSING BOARD

File number: WAD 198 of 2012

Judge: GILMOUR J

Date of judgment: 5 December 2012

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - appeal from an interlocutory order made under s 35(2)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) to restrict the disclosure of witness statement - whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the applicant was denied natural justice

Legislation: Constitution Ch III
Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth) s 34
Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2010
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 35(2)(c), 44(1)

Cases cited: Director-General of Social Services v Chaney (1980) 31 ALR 571 applied
Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51 cited

Date of hearing: 8 November 2012

Place: Perth

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 27

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Agapis appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr E Homan

Solicitor for the Respondent: Building Commission

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

WAD 198 of 2012

BETWEEN:
RAOUL AGAPIS
Applicant

AND:
PLUMBERS LICENSING BOARD
Respondent

JUDGE:

GILMOUR J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 DECEMBER 2012

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs, to be taxed if not agreed.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

WAD 198 of 2012

BETWEEN:
RAOUL AGAPIS
Applicant

AND:
PLUMBERS LICENSING BOARD
Respondent

JUDGE:

GILMOUR J

DATE:

5 DECEMBER 2012

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Background

The applicant appeals from an interlocutory order made under s 35(2)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the AAT Act) on 15 August 2012 by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). He seeks relief in the grant of an order that a plumbers license be issued to him operative in the State of Western Australia. Self-evidently, no such relief could be granted by this Court on an appeal of this nature.
The applicant is a plumber licensed as such in New South Wales. On 3 March 2011, under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth), which is adopted by the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2010, he applied to the respondent (the Board) to be licensed as a Plumbing Contractor in Western Australia. On 27 April 2011, the Board decided to refuse his application.
Section 34 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth) provides for review of the Board’s decision in the Tribunal, and on 15 June 2012 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the Board’s decision. The applicant submits that this occurred on 18 June 2012, though nothing turns on this.
The matter came before Deputy President Hotop of the Tribunal at a directions…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board

Details

AGLC: Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board [2012] FCA 1375
Case: [2012] FCA 1375
Decision Date: 5 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board involved the applicant, Agapis, seeking to challenge an interlocutory order made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to restrict the disclosure of a witness statement. The matter was brought before the Federal Court of Australia to determine whether the court had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal and whether the applicant was denied natural justice. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of section 35(2)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

The primary legal issues before the court were twofold. Firstly, the court needed to decide whether it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory decision of the AAT. Secondly, the court had to assess whether the applicant was denied natural justice by the AAT's interlocutory order restricting the disclosure of a witness statement. The court considered whether the AAT's decision to restrict disclosure was made in a procedurally fair manner, and if the applicant had a legitimate expectation of receiving the witness statement.

In addressing these issues, the court found that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the interlocutory decision of the AAT. The court emphasised that interlocutory orders of the AAT are generally not appealable unless they involve an error of law that affects the merits of the case. The court held that the order in question did not meet this threshold, as it was not an error of law that would impact the final outcome of the case. Furthermore, the court determined that the applicant was not denied natural justice by the AAT's interlocutory order. The court found that the AAT had acted within its statutory powers in restricting the disclosure of the witness statement, and that there was no procedural unfairness in doing so.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs. The court held that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the interlocutory decision of the AAT and that the applicant was not denied natural justice by the AAT's order. The orders were to be entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs, to be taxed if not agreed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citation:		Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board [2012] FCA 1375
Parties:		RAOUL AGAPIS v PLUMBERS LICENSING BOARD
File number:		WAD 198 of 2012
Judge:		GILMOUR J
Date of judgment:		5 December 2012
Catchwords:		ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - appeal from an interlocutory order made under s 35(2)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) to restrict the disclosure of witness statement - whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the applicant was denied natural justice
Legislation:		Constitution Ch III Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth) s 34 Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2010 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 35(2)(c), 44(1)
Cases cited:		Director-General of Social Services v Chaney (1980) 31 ALR 571 applied Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51 cited
Date of hearing:	8 November 2012
Place:	Perth
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	27
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr R Agapis appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr E Homan
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Building Commission

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 198 of 2012

BETWEEN:	RAOUL AGAPIS Applicant
AND:	PLUMBERS LICENSING BOARD Respondent

JUDGE:	GILMOUR J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 DECEMBER 2012
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

JUDGE:	GILMOUR J
DATE:	5 DECEMBER 2012
PLACE:	PERTH