Changshu Longte Grinding Ball Co., Ltd v Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science (No 1)

The case of Changshu Longte Grinding Ball Co., Ltd v Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science (No 1) involved the admissibility of expert evidence as it pertains to the unreasonableness ground of judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act). The applicant, Changshu Longte Grinding Ball Co., Ltd, sought an interlocutory application for an advance ruling under section 192A(a) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) to determine if the expert report by Mr Greg Houston was admissible. The respondents argued that the report was irrelevant and inadmissible as it was not before the primary decision-maker and did not align with the principles of judicial review. The primary issue before the court was whether the expert report was admissible to assist the court in understanding the alleged unreasonableness of the decision made by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

The court considered the principles guiding the admissibility of evidence in judicial review cases, noting that evidence not before the primary decision-maker is generally not admissible. However, the court determined that the issue of admissibility is ultimately guided by the grounds of judicial review and the particular circumstances of the case. The court referred to previous cases such as McCormack v Commissioner of Taxation and Australian Retailers Association v Reserve Bank of Australia to establish that expert evidence can be admitted in judicial review cases, particularly where the claim involves Wednesbury unreasonableness. The court found that the expert report was relevant as it addressed the economic concepts and methodological difficulties underlying the unreasonableness claim. Consequently, the court ruled that the report was admissible in principle to assist in understanding the unreasonableness ground of review.

In conclusion, the court ruled that the report of Greg Houston dated 8 August 2017 was admissible in principle in relation to ground 7 of the originating application. The court also set out detailed orders concerning the filing of expert evidence, affidavits, written submissions, and other procedural requirements to manage the proceedings effectively. The court ordered the respondents to pay the applicant's costs of the interlocutory application and set the matter for a two-day hearing in February 2018. The detailed procedural orders ensured that both parties were prepared with their evidence and submissions, facilitating a structured and efficient hearing of the case.