Confidential and Australian Prudential Regulation Authority

[2005] AATA 213

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 213

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N2005/12
  No N2005/31
  No N2004/1685

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL

Applicant

And AUSTRALIAN PRUDENTIAL REGULATION AUTHORITY

Respondent

INTERLOCUTORY DECISION

Tribunal Justice Garry Downes, President

Date8 March 2005

PlaceSydney

Decision The Tribunal does not vacate the existing Directions. The matter is adjourned until a date to be fixed for hearing as to whether a question of law should be referred to the Full Federal Court of Australia pursuant to s 45 of the Administrative Appeals Act 1975.

..............................................

President

REASONS FOR DECISION

8 March 2005 Justice Garry Downes, President

1.        In the ordinary course of the practice of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal these three matters were referred for conference to a conference registrar.  At or in connection with that conference, consent directions were made requiring amongst other things, the filing by the respondent of statements of facts, issues and contentions in three other matters not strictly before me this morning by 29 March 2005.

2. I am about to adjourn the three matters that are before me to a date to be fixed for hearing as to whether I should refer a question of law to the Full Federal Court of Australia pursuant to s 45 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 .  It is likely that that application will be heard after 29 March.  A question has accordingly arisen as to whether the existing directions should be vacated.

3.        At first I thought it might be appropriate to vacate the existing directions on the basis that new directions with a tight time table could be given at the time of the hearing before me.  However, the factual background to these matters is well known because it was subject to findings by the HIH Royal Commission and it would seem that there is no reason why, given the appropriate amount of effort, a statement of facts, issues and contentions could not now be prepared in the three other matters.

4. The three matters that are before me are subject to doubts as to jurisdiction which the applicants wish to raise but the three matters in which the directions were given are not. Because those three matters are discrete (in the sense that no jurisdictional issue arises) and because it is important for the Tribunal to adhere to its statutory duty to deal with matters with expedition and because knowing what is the case in the three other matters may be of some relevance to the question of whether I state a question of law under s 45, I have decided that I will not vacate the existing directions.

5.        However, I have been informed that a request for particulars was sent by the applicants in each of these matters and that the applicants would accept an answer to those particulars in substitution for the statement of facts, issues and contentions.  I am prepared, accordingly, to deem the provision of a letter or letters of particulars as satisfaction of the existing directions. 

6.        I would add just this, as some comfort to the respondent. If, in the course of the preparation of the statements of facts, issues and contentions it becomes apparent that there is some real problem which has not been anticipated in the provision of the statement, then I would expect that the respondent would provide a document in such form as it can but would then have to sustain before me the next time the matter is in the list, that it had a reasonable basis for acting as it did.

7.        I propose simply to stand the matter over to a date to be fixed for argument:

a)As to whether I should state a case under s 45;

b)As to what directions, if any, should be given in the matters generally;

c)On the question of the constitution of the Tribunal; and

d)On the question of how the Tribunal should comply with the privacy provision in s 63 of the Insurance Act 1973.

I propose that all six matters will be listed before me on the next occasion.

I certify that the seven (7) preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Justice Garry Downes, President

Signed:         .....................................................................................

Associate

Date/s of Hearing  8 March 2005
Date of Decision  8 March 2005
Counsel for the Applicant         J R Sackar QC
Solicitor for the Applicant          Allens Arthur Robinson
Counsel for the Respondent     S D Rares SC

Solicitor for the Respondent     Australian Government Solicitor