FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
C Incorporated v Australian Crime Commission (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 27
Citation: C Incorporated v Australian Crime Commission (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 27 Appeal from: C Incorporated v Australian Crime Commission [2008] FCA 1806 Parties: C INCORPORATED v AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION and JEFFREY PHILIP ANDERSON File number(s): NTD 22 of 2008 Judges: BLACK CJ, MANSFIELD & BENNETT JJ Date of judgment: 15 March 2010 Date of hearing: 4 & 5 March 2009 Date of last submissions: 26 February 2010 Place: Adelaide (heard in Darwin) Division: GENERAL Category: No catchwords Number of paragraphs: 1 Council for the Appellant/
Cross-Respondent:Mr A Wyvill, with Ms S Gearin Solicitor for the Respondents/Cross-
Appellants:Collier & Deane Lawyers Counsel for the Respondents/Cross-
Appellants:Mr S Gageler SC, with Ms S Maharaj QC and Mr R Prince Solicitor for the Respondents/Cross-
AppellantsAustralian Government Solicitor
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NTD 22 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: C INCORPORATED
Appellant/Cross-RespondentAND: AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
First Respondent/Cross-AppellantJEFFREY PHILIP ANDERSON
Second Respondent/Cross-Respondent
JUDGE:
BLACK CJ, MANSFIELD & BENNETT JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
15 MARCH 2010
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE (HEARD IN DARWIN)
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.There be no order for the costs of the appeal.
2.There be no order for the costs of the cross-appeal.
3.There be no order as to the costs of the hearing before the trial judge.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NTD 22 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: C INCORPORATED
Appellant/Cross-RespondentAND: AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
First Respondent/Cross-AppellantJEFFREY PHILIP ANDERSON
Second Respondent/Cross-Respondent
JUDGE:
BLACK, MANSFIELD, BENNETT JJ
DATE:
15 MARCH 2010
PLACE:
ADELAIDE (HEARD IN DARWIN)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The Commonwealth not having sought any order for costs, we consider that the appropriate order in the circumstances is that there be no order for the costs of the appeal or the cross-appeal and that there be no order as to the costs of the hearing before the trial judge.
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Black, and Justices Mansfield & Bennett. Associate:
Dated: 15 March 2010
- AGLC
- C Incorporated v Australian Crime Commission (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 27
- Case
- [2010] FCAFC 27
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether the notice was validly issued and whether the provisions of the Crimes Act allowed the Commission to demand such information from a corporation. The High Court considered the interplay between the statutory powers granted to the Commission and the rights of corporations under the Australian Constitution. The court was tasked with interpreting the statutory language and determining whether the Commission's actions were within the bounds of the statutory authority conferred upon it. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the extent to which the provisions of the Crimes Act could be applied to compel information disclosure from a private entity.
In its decision, the court concluded that the demand notice was not valid as it exceeded the powers granted by section 37A of the Crimes Act. The court found that the statute did not explicitly authorise the Commission to demand information from a private corporation in the manner it had attempted. The court emphasised the importance of clear statutory language and the principle that statutory powers should not be extended beyond their express terms. Consequently, the appeal by the Australian Crime Commission was dismissed, and the court held that the Commission's demand notice was beyond its lawful authority. The High Court's ruling clarified the scope of the Commission's powers under the Crimes Act, providing guidance on the application of these provisions to private entities.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. There be no order for the costs of the appeal.
2. There be no order for the costs of the cross-appeal.
3. There be no order as to the costs of the hearing before the trial judge.
Note:
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.