Re: ALAN BOND; DALLHOLD INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED; BOND CORPORATION
HOLDINGS LIMITED; BOND MEDIA LIMITED and DAVID ROY ASPINALL
And: AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL
Re: QUEENSLAND TELEVISION LIMITED; CONSOLIDATED BROADCASTING SYSTEM
(W.A.) PTY LIMITED; NORTHWEST RADIO PTY LIMITED and DARWIN
BROADCASTERS PTY LIMITED
And: AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL
Nos. G349 and G513 of 1989
FED No. 533
Broadcasting - Administrative Law
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Lockhart(1), Pincus(1) and Gummow(1) JJ.
CATCHWORDS
Broadcasting - commercial radio and television licensees - what constitutes such a licensee as "no longer a fit and proper person to hold the licence" within the meaning of para. 88 (2) (b) (i) of the Broadcasting Act 1942.
Administrative Law - judicial review - deficiencies in findings of primary fact upon which ultimate finding based - whether reviewable error - whether each finding of primary fact separately reviewable as a "decision" - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, s. 5.
Judiciary Act 1903
Broadcasting & Television Act 1942
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Edelstein v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (NSW) (1989) 86 ALR 257
Bond Media Ltd. v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (Pincus J., 31 May 1989, unrep.)
The Queen v Australian Stevedoring Industry Board; Ex parte Melbourne Stevedoring Co. Pty. Ltd. (1953) 88 CLR 100
Lombardo v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1979) 40 FLR 208
Television Capricornia Pty. Ltd. v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1986) 13 FCR 511
Ashbridge Investments Ltd. v Minister for Housing and Local Government (1956) 1 WLR 1320
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (1977) AC 1014
NZI Financial Corporation Ltd. v New Zealand Kiwifruit Authority (1986) 1 NZLR 159
The Minister of State for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Pashmforoosh (Full Court, 28 June 1989, unrep.)
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223
Puhlhofer v Hillingdon London Borough Council (1986) 1 AC 484
Broadbridge v Stammers (1987) 76 ALR 339
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd. (1989) 84 ALR 669; 86 ALR 424
D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (1978) AC 171
Western Television Ltd. v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1986) 12 FCR 414
New Broadcasting Ltd. v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1987) 73 ALR 420
HEARING
SYDNEY
#DATE: 12:9:1989
No. G349 of 1989
Counsel and Solicitors Mr. R.V. Gyles Q.C.,
for the Applicants: Mr. D.K. Catterns instructed by
Messrs. Blake Dawson Waldron.
Counsel and Solicitors Mr. R.J. Burbidge Q.C.,
for the Respondent: Mr. P. Roberts, Mr. L. Katz
instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor
No. G513 of 1989
Counsel and…
Continue reading Bond v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bond, A. & Ors v. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal [1989] FCA 533
- Case
- [1989] FCA 533
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the ABT had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions in determining the applicants' fitness to hold broadcasting licenses. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the ABT had acted beyond its powers, made an error of law, or failed to consider relevant material. Additionally, the court had to determine if the ABT's findings were unreasonable or unjust. The applicants contended that the ABT had not properly evaluated their individual suitability and had instead relied on a collective assessment that did not reflect the specific circumstances of each applicant.
The Federal Court found in favour of the applicants, setting aside the ABT's decisions. The court held that the ABT had not properly considered the individual circumstances of the applicants and had instead made broad findings that were not supported by evidence. The court noted that the ABT had failed to adequately address the specific facts and evidence relevant to each applicant. Furthermore, the court found that the ABT's decision was unreasonable and unjust, as it did not provide a fair assessment of the applicants' fitness to hold broadcasting licenses. Consequently, the court ordered that the ABT's decisions be set aside and directed the ABT to pay the applicants' costs. The court's decision underscored the importance of individualised assessments when determining the fitness of broadcasting license holders.
Orders
Orders of the court
No. G349 of 1989
The decision of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal made on 26 June 1989 that Queensland Television Limited, Consolidated Broadcasting System (W.A.) Pty. Limited, Northwest Radio Pty. Limited and Darwin Broadcasters Pty. Limited are no longer fit and proper persons within the terms of sub-paragraph 88 (2) (b) (i) of the Broadcasting Act 1942 be set aside.
The decision of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal made on 26 June 1989 that Mr. Alan Bond would not be found to be a fit and proper person to hold a broadcasting licence be set aside.
The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal pay the costs of the applicants of this proceeding (including any reserved costs of motions in this proceeding heard on 1 August 1989).
No. G513 of 1989
The decision of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal made on 26 June 1989 that Queensland Television Limited, Consolidated Broadcasting System (W.A.) Pty. Limited, Northwest Radio Pty. Limited and Darwin Broadcasters Pty. Limited are no longer fit and proper persons within the terms of sub-paragraph 88 (2) (b) (i) of the Broadcasting Act 1942 be set aside.
The decision of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal made on 26 June 1989 that Mr. Alan Bond would not be found to be a fit and proper person to hold a broadcasting licence be set aside.
The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal pay the costs of the applicants of this proceeding (including any reserved costs of motions in this proceeding heard on 1 August 1989).
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
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.