Clyne, Peter Leopold v Scott, Eardley Murray (S.M.)

[1983] FCA 273

IN THE FEDERAL COURT	OF AUSTRALIA
GENERAL DIVISION

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G193 of 1983

BETWEEN PETER LEOPOLD CLYNE

Applicant

-	AND	EARDLEY MURRAY SCOTT	( S .X.	)
Flrst Respondent
AND
-	PAUL JAMES HOLDING Second Respondent

CORRIGENDA

Amendment to the ~udgment of Beaumont, J. of 6 October, 1983.

In Orders, where'ldate orders made'lappears, substltute

" 6 October, 1983" for "5 October, 1983".

In Reasons for Judgment, where "Dated" appears on flrst

page, substltute " 6 October, 1983" for "5 October, 1983".

On page 2 llne 7 where "bail on 11 December, 1983" appears substltute "l1 December, 1982".

Diana Chang

Associate to

Mr. Zustlce Beaumont

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GENEPAL DIVISION

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G193 of 1983

BETWEEN PETER LEOPOLD CLYNE

Applicant

-	EARDLEY MURRAY SCOTT	( S .M.	)
First Respondent
-	AND	PAUL JAMES HOLDING Second Respondent

AND

ORDERS

JUDGE FMING ORDERS: Beaumont, J.

DATE ORDERS	MADE:	5 October, 1983.
WHERE MADE:	Sydney

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Order that the applicatlon for revlew and appllcatlon

for lnterim stay of proceedlngs be adlourned to Monday, 17

Octeber, 1983 at 9.30 a.m. for mention only 111 the first

instance but with a view to flxing a date f o r a flnal hearing

of the appllcatlon f o r review should that be approprlate.

2. Costs reserved be

I N THE FEDERAL COURT O F AUSTRALIA

GENERAL DIVISION

hTEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NO. ClC3 of 1963

BETWEEN	PETER LEGPCLD CLYEE
Applicant
AND -	EARDLEY MURRAY SCOTT (S .M. )
Fi r s t Responden t
PAUL JAMES KCLDIKG
Second Respondent

CCRAM : BEAUMONT, J.

DATED: 5 October, 1963.

REASOKS FOR JUDGMENT

This 1 s an app l i ca t ion made p u r s u a n t t o s.15(1) ( b )

of t h e A d m l n l s t r a t l v e C e c l s l o n ( J u d l c l a l F e v i e r ) A c t , 1977

t o Ctay a l l p r o c e e d i n g s u n d e r a d e c l s i o n made by t he f l r s t

r e s p o n d e n t s i t t i n g s t l p e n d i a r y a s m a g i s t r a t e . Th c

proceed ings In wh ich t he dec l s ion was made w e r e l n s t l t u t e d

under a n lnformatlon deted 10 Decerrber, 1962 and charged the

a p p l i c a n t w i t h a b r e a c h o f R e g u l a t i o n 4 0 o f t h e E a n k l n q

2 .

(Foreign Exchange) Regulations made unde r t he Eank ing I c t ,

1959. The i n f o r m a t i o n g a v e p a r t l c u l a r s o f a n a l l e g c d f a l s e

s t a t e m e n t s a l d t o be c o n t r a r y t o Regulat lons 40 and 42.

The information was exh lb i t ed on 10 December, 1982

and on thesame day a warran t w a s I ssued for the apprehens ion

of t h e a p p l i c a n t . The a p p l i c a n t was a r r e s t e d on t h a t d a y

8L

b u t r e l e a s e d on b a l l on 11 Cecfmber, l@ Although the

a p p l i c a n t f i r s t a p p e a r e d b e f o r e a C o u r t o f P e t t y S e s s i o n s en

13 December, 1982 when he was remanded u n t i l 20 December,

1 9 8 2 , t h e c o n s e n t o f t h e T r e a s u r e r t o t h e i n d t u t i o n o f t h e

p r o c e e d i n g s a s r e q u i r e d b y S .70 of the Eanking Act 1959, ,

was g lven not u n t i l December, 16 1982. Committal

proceedings were commenced b e f o r e t h e f i r s t r e s p o n d e n t o n 4

Ju ly , 1983 and the hear ing of those p roceedings cont inued on

5 and 6 J u l y , 1983. Some evidence was t a k e n b u t a number o f

prel iminary submlssions were made beha l f on t he o f

a p p l i c a n t . A d e c l s i o n on these p re l imina ry submiss iocs was

r e se rved . On 20 J u l y , 1 9 8 3 t h e f i r s t r e s p o n d e n t r e l e c t e d

p re l imlna ry the submlss lons and h e l d h a d t h a t h e

j u r l s d i c t i o n t o p r o c e e d i n t h e m a t t e r f o r t h e r e a s o n s h e

t h e n g a v e . Cn 2 1 J u l y , 1 9 8 3 t h e a p p l l c a n t f i l e d h i s

a p p l l c a t i o n i n t h i s C o u r t f o r a n o r d e r o f r e v l e w o f t h e

d e c i s l o n of t h e f i rs t respondent made on 20 July, 1983 under

t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e D e c i s l o n (Judicial

Revlew) Act, 1977 . The m a t t e r w a s adjourned from t l m e t o

t i m e I n t h i s C o u r t . One r e a s o n f o r I ts adlournment was that

3.

t he pa r t i e s were awa i t ing t he ou tcome of t h e a p p e a l t o a

F u l l C o u r t o f t h i s C o u r t from t h e d e c i s i o n o f S t . John, J.

i n m v. Brown (1383) 47 A . L . R . 217 . I t was a c c e p t e d t h a t

i f t h a t a p p e a l w e r e s u c c e s s f u l , it wou ld p robab ly r e su l t i n

t he d i smis sa l o f t h i s app l i ca t lon fo r r ev iew on t he g round

t h a t t h l s C o u r t l a c k e d j u r l s d i c t i o n .

I n s u p p o r t o f h i s a p p l l c a t i o n f o r a s t z y , t h e

a p p l i c a n t s u b m i t s t h a t , b y r e a s o n o f t h r e e p o i n t s o f l a w

going t o j u r i s d i c t i o n , h e h a s e s t a b l i s h e d a s u f f i c i e n t l y

a r g u a b l e c a s e t o w a r r a n t t h e g r a n t o f a s t a y of proceedings

unde r t he dec i s lon of t h e f l r s t r e s p o n d e n t h o l d i n g t h a t h e

h a s J u r i s d i c t i o n t o p r o c e e d i n t h e m a t t e r . The p o i n t s a r e

developed a t l e n g t h i n w r i t t e n s u b m l s s i o n s whlch were made

b y t h e a p p l i c a n t to t h e f i r s t r e s p o n d e n t a n d which were made

a v a i l a b l e i n t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n . I n e s s e n c e , t h e p o i n t s a r e

a s fo l lows:

1. Although lnformation the was e x h i b i t e d on 10

Cecember, 1982, the consent of t h e T r e a s u r e r a s r e q u i r e d by

S .70 of the Eanking A c t , 1959, was no t ob ta ined fo r some

d a y s t h e r e a f t e r and it fo l lows , by r eason o f t he p rov i s ions

of S .70( l), t h a t t h e p r o c e e d i n g s a r e bat! ( see NcPonnel l v .

S m i t h ( 1 9 1 8 ) 24 C . L . R . 409) F u r t h e r , . s . 7 0 ( 3 ) * a s n o

a p p l i c a t i o n s i n c e i t i s l l m i t e d i n i t s o F e r a t i o n t o t h e

g r a n t of immvnlty from s u i t t o t h o s e i n v o l v e d m t h e n r r e s t .

4 .

2. The informat ion 1 s bad because the Informant was

n o t a n o f f i c e r o f t h e R e s e r v e Bank, t hese be ing p roceed ings

b rough t unde r r egu la t lons admin i s t e red by t ha t Bank ( c f .

Crlmes	Act,	1914, s.13).
3.	R e g u l a t i o n 42 t h e o f E a n k i n g ( F o r e i g n E x c h a n g e )

Regula t ions i s i n v a l l d . The scurce o f power t o make t h i s

r e g u l a t i c n i s s.39(2)(q) and Regulat lon 42 does no t

" p r e s c r l b e " a p e n a l t y f o r t h a t p u r p o s e ( s e e E o r o w s k i v .

Veales Automotive Engineers Pty. Ltd. c19791 WAR 33).

I n t h e l i g h t of t h e c o n c l u s i o n I h a v e u l t i m a t e l y

r e a c h e d a s t o t h e p r o p e r c o u r s e t o b e t a k e n i n t h l s

proceeding a t t h l s s t a g e , it 1 s n o t n e c e s s a r y t h a t I expres s

any view a t a l l on any of the p o i n t s r a l s e d and I do n o t

p r o p o s e t o d o so. I n my o p i n i o n , t h e p r o p e r e x e r c l s e , a t

t h l s s t a g e , o f t h e d i s c r e t i o n g l v e n t o the Cour t by

~ . 1 5 ( 1 ) ( b ) 1 s t o a d j o u r n t h e a p p l l c a t i o n f o r a s t a y f o r a

s h o r t p e r i o d i n t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t ~ u d g m e n t w i l l s h o r t l y

b e g i v e n I n t h e a p p e a l i n Moss v. Brown. The f a t e o f t h a t

appea l i s expected t o be known nex t week. Thereupon, the

ques t ion o f j u r l sd i c t ion shou ld , In t he ma in , be r e so lved .

If j u r l s d l c t i o n h e r e i s e s t a b l l s h e d , f u l l c o n s i d e r a t i o n may

t h e n b e g i v e n t o t h e t h r e e p o i n t s w h l c h h a v e b e e n a r g u e d b y

a p p l l c a n t . t h e If l u r i s d i c t i c n i s e s t a b l l s h e d , n o t

p r e s u m a b l y	o n l y	t h e	q u e s t i o n	o f	ccsts	w i l l	r e m a i n	f c r
d e c i s l o n .

5.

I f a s h o r t a d ~ o u r n m e n t of t h e s t a y a p p l i c a t i o n w e r e

g r a n t e d , i t would seem t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t w o u l d s u f f e r

r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e , i f a n y , p r e l u d i c e : t h e p r o b a b i l i t i e s a r e

t h a t , a l t h o u g h , of c o u r s e , a m a t t e r f o r h i m , t h e f i r s t

respondent w i l l a d ~ o u r n t h e f u r t h e r h e a r i n q t h e o f

proceedings untll a t l e a s t ludgment i s g iven In t he appea l

i n - Moss v. Brown: even If t h a t h e a r l n g p r o c e e d s

t e m p o r a r i l y , t h e a p p l i c a n t a p p e a r s t h e r e i n p e r s o n a n d will

n o t i n c u r p r o f e s s i o n a l e x p e n s e s I n t h a t b e h a l f . On t h e

o the r hand , it i s a t l e a s t p o s s i b l e t h a t , i f t h e c o m m i t t a l

h e a r i n g p r o c e e d s , t h e a p p l i c a n t w l l l wish t o r a l s e f u r t h e r

p o i n t s for r e v l e w b y t h i s C o u r t and t h e r e i s merit i n t h e

s u g g e s t i o n t h a t a l l p o i n t s t o b e r a l s e d f o r r e v i e w s h o u l d be

d e a l t w i t h i n a s i n g l e h e a r l n g .

F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , i n my v i e w , t h e b a l a n c e o f

c o n v e n i e n c e s u g g e s t s t h a t n o s t a y b e g r a n t e d a t t h i s s t a g e

b u t t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a s t ay be ad jou rned fo r 5 s h o r t

p e r l o d E O t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t may renew h l s a p F l l c a t i o n ~f he

s e e s f l t t o do so. I s h o u l d l n d l c a t e t h a t I would be able

t o h e a r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e v i e w o n a f m a l h e a r i n g b a s l s

t h e i n week commencing 17 October , 1983, assumlng

l u r i s d i c t i o n i s e s t a b l i s h e d .

I p roFose t o make t h e s e o r d e r s :

1. a p p l i c a t i o n t h e C r d e r t h a t r e v i e w a n d f o r

- I + - . 6.

application for I n t e r i m s t a y of proceedings be a d j o u r n e d t o

Konday, 1 7 Cctober , 1583 a t 9 .30 a.m. fcr mention only i n

t h e f l r s t i n s t a n c e b u t w i th 2 view t o f i x i n g a d a t e i o r a

f i n a l h e z r l n g of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n for revlew s h o u l d t h a t be

a p p r o p r i a t e .

2 . Costs r e s e r v e d ,

I certify that this and the 5 preceding

pages are a true copy of the reasons for

judgment herem of The Honourable

M r Justice Beaumont. & m C r

.-