Calvista Australia Pty Ltd v Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Calvista Australia Pty Ltd challenged the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to dismiss its appeal against the Director of the Classification Board's refusal to grant a permission under regulation 4A(2) of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cth) to import certain films. The Tribunal found that the Director's refusal to grant the permission was not unreasonable or unlawful and that Calvista was not entitled to procedural fairness because it had no standing in relation to the application for permission. Calvista argued that the Tribunal erred in law by finding that it had clear knowledge from August 2001 that permission to import objectionable goods was required, and that there was a risk of release of objectionable material to the Australian market if the permission was granted. The court found that the Tribunal did consider the evidence and undertaking at [82], and that the findings of fact were not illogical, irrational or unreasonable. The court also found that the Tribunal did not err in law by concluding that Calvista was not entitled to procedural fairness because it had no standing in relation to the application for permission. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Tribunal, and remitted the case to be heard and decided again by the Tribunal. The Director accepted that if Calvista succeeded on any of its other grounds, it also succeeded on the unreasonableness ground. The court did not make the declaration sought by Calvista in the alternative, and costs should follow the event. The court noted that its decision did not go to the merits of the application for permission considered by the Tribunal or to the merits of any future application for such a permission.