Clark Equipment Australia Ltd v The Comptroller-General of Customs

[1990] FCA 608

bog, 90 -

JUDGMENT NO. ........ ........ .. .... .u...-

NOT FOR

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - interrogatories - application for leave to interrogate -

principles to be applied.

. . . .

lve Dec~s~ons ( J u w Rev~ew \ A a 1977 (Cth) - 6.13

1975 (Cth) - s.8(2A)

Pedcral - order 16 rule 1

U A R K EOUIPMENT AUSTRALIA LIMITED

V. B COMPTROLLER-GENERAL OF CUSTOM and

m MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY. -0LOGY	AND COMMERCE
No. G108 of 1990
Davies J.
2 November 1990
Sydney

)	No. G108 of 1990
)

BETWEEN:  C L A R K E O U I P M E N T

-

Applicant

T H E C O M P T R O L L E R -

-

First Respondent

T H E M I N I S T E R F O B

INDUSTRY. TECHNOLOGY

Second Respondent

Davies 1.
2 November 1990

Sydney

MINUTES OF ORDER

P:

The motion be refused with costs.

Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court
Rules.

)

)	No. G108 of 1990
)

BETWEEN:  NT

LIMITED

Applicant

Ik!E C O M P T R O L L E R - G E N U

CUSTOMS

First Respondent

MINISTER FOR INDUflRY,

TECHNOLOGY AND C O M M E R a

Second Respondent

cQU!ll:	Davies J.
R&:	2 November 1990
&&S:	Sydney

-SONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is a motion under Order 16 Rule 1 of the Federal Court Rules for the grant

of leave to the applicant, Clark Equipment Australia Limited, to interrogate the frrst respondent,

the Comptroller-General of Customs.

The principal application concerns a decision of the Comptroller-General to

suspend his consideration of a dumping complaint concerning forklift trucks imported from Japan following the acceptance of undertakings from exporters by the second respondent, the

Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce under s.8(2A) of the Customs Tariff (Anti-

~ D I ~ & 1975 (Cth). P ) The principal application seeks orders of review under the

. . . .

m r s t r a t i v e D e c ~ s r ~ u d i c i a l	Review) & 1977 (Cth) ("the ADJR Aa") with respect to that
matter.

. .

In v . C o m m o n w e p l t h (delivered 25 October 1990,

unreported) in refusing a similar application, I discussed the principles to be applied. The present is a very similar case for the applicant has the advantage of a statement of reasons under

s.13 of the ADJR and affidavits setting out the evidence to be adduced a t the hearing have been filed. In Coster's 1 pointed out why, in administrative law cases when reasons for a

decision are available under s.13 of the ADJR, leave to interrogate will seldom be granted

and that interrogatories, if delivered, should be directed to reducing costs and should go to a precise point so that they can be answered clearly and the answers tendered fairly to both parties.

As the matter has been re-argued in this present application, I should emphasise

my view that most administrative law cases are better dealt with on the papers, that is to say having regard to the material that was or ought to have been in the files of the decision-maker

a t the time when the relevant decision was taken, rather than through the means of interrogation prior to trial or cross-examination a t trial. The latter processes tend to involve the Court in the

merits of the decision by distracting attention from the material on which the decision was based to material that has come forward at the trial or in the course of the legal proceedings. It is for that reason, inter alia, that in the United Kingdom cross-examination of deponents in judicial review proceedings is not permitted without leave and that leave is granted frugally.

In the present case, Mr B. Walker, C O U ~ M ~ for the applicant, submitted that the

interrogatories were not fishing and that they sought to obtain clear admissions of matters which

might otherwise have to be inferred from documents and to ensure that the applicant was not caught by surprise at the trial. However, the interrogatories sought appear to me to be unnecessary and time-wasting. The applicant has had the advantage of the s.13 statement and of affidavits from officers of Customs who have set out in detail the steps taken in relation to the dumping inquiry. This appears to be a case, like so many others involving administrative

decisions, where significant events and officers' perceptions thereof have been recorded in files.

Interrogation is unnecessary and efficient Litigation would not be promoted thereby. The

interrogatories are wide in scope and are not amenable of an easy answer. I take by way of

example the following interrogatory:-

"9. If the answer to Interrogatory 7. above is in the affirmative, in considering the Normal Values for Forklift Trucks on the basis that sufficient information had not been furnished or was not available to enable sub-sections 5(1) or S(2) of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 to be applied, what reasoning was referred to and used by the officers and agents of the Comptroller-General of Customs who carried out such consideration which was different reasoning from the reasoning which had been considered insufficient or was additional reasoning to the reasoning which had been considered insufficient?"

Interrogatories such as these are likely to delay the proceedings and to increase costs rather than

to achieve a useful end.

For these reasons and for those stated in Coster's c=, I will refuse the motion

with costs.

I certify that this and the preceding 2 pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Mr Justice Davies.

Associate: ub i&

Date:  2 November 1990 U

Counsel for the applicant:	Mr B. Walker
Solicitors for the applicant:	C.G. Gillis & Co.
Counsel for the respondent:	Mr S. Gageler
Solicitor for the respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of hearing:	26 October 1990
Date of judgment:	2 November 1990