Attorney-General (ACT) v Eastman

Link copied
Case Copied 35 min read

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY v DAVID HAROLD EASTMAN
 [2008] ACTCA 6 (21 APRIL 2008)

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for leave to appeal out of time – delay.
ESTOPPEL – Issue estoppel – findings adverse to ultimately successful party – findings ancillary to ultimate result – jurisdiction not defined by issue estoppel – estoppel by convention.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT) ss 3(3), 3A(2), 19
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 475
Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) r 5405

Alpha Wealth Financial Services Pty Ltd v Frankland River Olive Company Ltd (2006) 199 FLR 91 cited
Arrow Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Merck & Co, Inc (2004) 213 ALR 182 cited

Australian Capital Territory v Cavanagh (2004) 185 FLR 455 cited

Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464 followed
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v FH Faulding & Co Limited (2000) 97 FCR 524 questioned
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No. 2) [1967] 1 AC 853 referred to
Con-Stan Industries of Australia Proprietary Limited v Norwich Winterthur Insurance (Australia) Limited (1986) 160 CLR 226 followed
D.S.V. Silo-und Verwaltungsgesellschaft M.B.H. v Owners of The Sennar and 13 other ships [1985] 1 WLR 490 applied

Director of Public Prosecutions of the Australian Capital Territory v Eastman (2002) 130 A Crim R 588 cited

Director of Public Prosecutions of the Australian Capital Territory v Eastman (2002) 118 FCR 360 cited

Eastman v The Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory (2007) 210 FLR 440 cited

Eastman v Director of Public Prosecutions of the Australian Capital Territory (2003) 214 CLR 318 cited

Eastman v Higgins (2007) 210 FLR 464 cited

Eastman v Miles (2006) 199 FLR 217 cited

Eastman v Miles [2006] ACTSC 57 cited

Eastman v Miles (2007) 210 FLR 417 discussed

Eastman v Minister for Corrective Services (2004) 181 FLR 447 cited

Eastman v The Queen (1997) 76 FCR 9 cited

Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1 cited

EI Du Pont de Nemours & Co v Imperial Chemical Industries PLC (2007) 73 IPR 460 considered
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 236 ALR 209 cited

GEC Marconi Systems Pty Ltd v BHP Information Technology Pty Ltd (2003) 128 FCR 1 considered

Hoysted v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1921) 29 CLR 537 referred to
Inre State of Norway’s Application (No. 2) [1990] 1 AC 723 considered
Jackson v Goldsmith (1950) 81 CLR 446 referred to
James v The Commonwealth (1935) 52 CLR 570 followed
James v The Commonwealth (1936) 55 CLR 1 referred to
Jess v Scott (1986) 12 FCR 187 discussed
Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd v Harbord (1997) 69 SASR 75 discussed
Murphy v Abi-Saab (1995) 37 NSWLR 280 considered

National Westminster Finance NZ Ltd v National Bank of NZ Ltd [1996] 1 NZLR 548n applied

Penn-Texas Corporation v Murat Anstalt (No 2) [1964] 2 QB 647 referred to

Pratten v Warringah Shire Council (1969) 90 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 134 referred to

Quanta Software International Pty Ltd v Quanta Systems Ltd [2004] FCA…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Attorney-General (ACT) v Eastman and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2008] ACTCA 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) sought leave to appeal out of time against a decision of the Supreme Court of the ACT. The dispute concerned the application of issue estoppel and estoppel by convention in circumstances where findings adverse to the ultimately successful party were made in prior proceedings. The matter was heard by Moore, Stone, and Dowsett JJ of the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Full Federal Court were whether issue estoppel operated to prevent the Attorney-General from pursuing certain arguments, and whether estoppel by convention applied. Specifically, the court had to determine if findings made in earlier proceedings, which were ancillary to the ultimate result of those proceedings and not essential to the final determination, could nonetheless give rise to an issue estoppel in subsequent litigation. The court also considered the circumstances under which an estoppel by convention might arise.

The Full Federal Court held that issue estoppel does not extend to findings that are not essential to the ultimate decision in prior proceedings. The court reasoned that the jurisdiction of a court is not defined by issue estoppel in such a manner. Furthermore, the court found that the requirements for estoppel by convention were not met in this case. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed with costs.

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.