Boral Windows v Industry Research and Development Board - [1998] FCA 455

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Whether registration with the Industry Research and Development Board under s 39J Industry Research and Development Act 1986 (Cth) in November 1996 is vitiated by the Industry Research and Development Amendment Act 1996 – objects of the Acts – retrospective effect of the Industry Research and Development Amendment Act 1996 – application of principles of statutory interpretation

Industry Research and Development Act 1986 (Cth) ss 3, 39J

Industry Research and Development Amendment Act 1996 (Cth) s 2
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) s 73B(10)

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) ss 8, 15AA

Lauri v Renad [1892] 3 Ch 402 cited
Reid v Reid (1886) 31 Ch D 402 – followed
Coleman v The Shell Company of Australia Limited (1943) 45 SR (NSW) 27 – cited
Commonwealth of Australia v ACI Operations Pty Limited [1998] HCA 20 – cited
Zainal bin Hashim v Government of Malaysia [1980] AC 734 – cited
Wijesuriya v Amit [1966] AC 372 followed

BORAL WINDOWS AND ORS v
INDUSTRY RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND ORS

NG 704 of 1996

HILL J
SYDNEY
6 MAY 1998

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 704 of 1996

BETWEEN:

BORAL WINDOWS PTY LIMITED (ACN 004 223 009)
FIRST APPLICANT

GAS CORPORATION OF QUEENSLAND LIMITED
(ACN 009 760 883)
SECOND APPLICANT

ALLEN TAYLOR & COMPANY LIMITED (ACN 000 003 056)
THIRD APPLICANT

AND:

INDUSTRY RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
FIRST RESPONDENT

THE TAX CONCESSION COMMITTEE
SECOND RESPONDENT

THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY SCIENCE
& TOURISM
THIRD RESPONDENT

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
FOURTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HILL J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 MAY 1998

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The question reserved for decision:
“Whether the Second Applicant’s registration under Section 39J, as communicated by letter dated 25 November 1996, is vitiated by the Industry Research and Development Amendment Act 1996”
be answered in the affirmative.

The Second Applicant to pay the Respondent’s costs of the separate issue reserved by the Court.

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 704 of 1996

BETWEEN:

BORAL WINDOWS PTY LIMITED (ACN 004 223 009)
FIRST APPLICANT

GAS CORPORATION OF QUEENSLAND LIMITED
(ACN 009 760 883)
SECOND APPLICANT

ALLEN TAYLOR & COMPANY LIMITED (CAN 000 003 056)
THIRD APPLICANT

AND:

INDUSTRY RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
FIRST RESPONDENT

THE TAX CONCESSION COMMITTEE
SECOND RESPONDENT

THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY SCIENCE
& TOURISM
THIRD RESPONDENT

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
FOURTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HILL J

DATE:

6 MAY 1998

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Gas Corporation of Queensland Limited (“Gas Corp”) is the second of three applicants who seek judicial review relying upon the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 together with consequential relief. It is claimed that the First Respondent, Industry Research and Development Board and the Second Respondent, Tax Concession Committee failed to determine the application by Gas Corp for registration under Part IIIA of the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, (the “1986 IRD Act”) in respect of the year of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Boral Windows v Industry Research and Development Board 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: [1998] FCA 455
Decision Date: 6 MAY 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved a legal challenge by Boral Windows Pty Limited and Gas Corporation of Queensland Limited against the Industry Research & Development Board and other respondents. The applicants sought a declaration that a registration held by the Second Applicant under section 39J of a particular Act was void due to alleged legislative errors. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the Industry Research and Development Amendment Act 1996. The central legal issue for the court to determine was whether the registration of the Second Applicant, as communicated in a letter dated 25 November 1996, was invalid due to the purported legislative amendments. The court had to examine the relevant statutory provisions and assess the impact of the legislative changes on the existing registration.

The court conducted a detailed analysis of the statutory framework and the legislative amendments in question. The judge concluded that the legislative changes introduced by the Industry Research and Development Amendment Act 1996 did indeed affect the validity of the registration held by the Second Applicant. The court found that the registration was not consistent with the new legislative requirements, thereby rendering it void. The judge also emphasised that the Second Applicant had not demonstrated that it had taken all reasonable steps to comply with the new legislative framework, further supporting the conclusion that the registration was invalid.

The court answered the reserved question in the affirmative, declaring that the Second Applicant’s registration under section 39J was indeed vitiated by the legislative amendments. Additionally, the court ordered the Second Applicant to pay the Respondent’s costs associated with the separate issue that had been reserved by the Court. The final orders were consistent with the court’s findings, providing clarity on the validity of the registration and the financial consequences for the Second Applicant.

Orders

Orders of the court

The question reserved for decision:

“Whether the Second Applicant’s registration under Section 39J, as communicated by letter dated 25 November 1996, is vitiated by the Industry Research and Development Amendment Act 1996”

be answered in the affirmative.

The Second Applicant to pay the Respondent’s costs of the separate issue reserved by the Court.

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 704 of 1996

BETWEEN:

BORAL WINDOWS PTY LIMITED (ACN 004 223 009)

FIRST APPLICANT

GAS CORPORATION OF QUEENSLAND LIMITED

(ACN 009 760 883)

SECOND APPLICANT

ALLEN TAYLOR & COMPANY LIMITED (CAN 000 003 056)

THIRD APPLICANT

AND:

INDUSTRY RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT BOARD

FIRST RESPONDENT

THE TAX CONCESSION COMMITTEE

SECOND RESPONDENT

THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY SCIENCE

& TOURISM

THIRD RESPONDENT

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

FOURTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HILL J

DATE:

6 MAY 1998

PLACE:

SYDNEY

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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 704 of 1996

BETWEEN:	BORAL WINDOWS PTY LIMITED (ACN 004 223 009) FIRST APPLICANT GAS CORPORATION OF QUEENSLAND LIMITED (ACN 009 760 883) SECOND APPLICANT ALLEN TAYLOR & COMPANY LIMITED (ACN 000 003 056) THIRD APPLICANT
AND:	INDUSTRY RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT BOARD FIRST RESPONDENT THE TAX CONCESSION COMMITTEE SECOND RESPONDENT THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY SCIENCE & TOURISM THIRD RESPONDENT COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA FOURTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:		HILL J
DATE OF ORDER:		6 MAY 1998
WHERE MADE:		SYDNEY

JUDGE:	HILL J
DATE:	6 MAY 1998
PLACE:	SYDNEY