Cook v ASP Ship Management

[2001] FCA 598

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Cook v ASP Ship Management [2001] FCA 598

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Practice and procedure- Directions given by the Tribunal - Whether the Court should interfere with interlocutory directions on matters of practice and procedure – Undesirable for the process adopted by the Tribunal to be fragmented by inappropriate applications for judicial review to the Court

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 (Cth)

Geographical Indications Committee v Honourable Justice O'Connor [2000] FCA 1877

GEORGE WILSON COOK and ANOTHER v ASP SHIP MANAGEMENT

V 809 OF 2000

SPENDER, MARSHALL AND WEINBERG JJ
MELBOURNE
16 FEBRUARY 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 809 OF 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	GEORGE WILSON COOK and ANOTHER APPLICANTS
AND:	ASP SHIP MANAGEMENT RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	SPENDER, MARSHALL AND WEINBERG JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	16 FEBRUARY 2001
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.There be no order as to costs of the appeal.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 809 OF 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	GEORGE WILSON COOK and ANOTHER APPLICANTS
AND:	ASP SHIP MANAGEMENT RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	SPENDER, MARSHALL AND WEINBERG JJ
DATE:	16 FEBRUARY 2001
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SPENDER J:

1. I agree with the reasons for judgment of Marshall J. As those reasons indicate, Heerey J was concerned to examine the merits of the claims advanced by Mr and Mrs Cook to him that the directions hearing and the directions given by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal offended the principle that a party to a proceeding, including a party in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, is entitled to procedural fairness.

2. There is, however, an important matter of principle involved in this appeal. When regard is had to the orders and directions made by Senior Member Gibbs on 1 May 2000, it is clear that the first and second of those matters determine in a final way aspects of the involvement of Mrs Cook, first in relation to the application V 270 of 2000 and then with the appropriateness of her being a party to Mr Cook's two applications.

3. The other directions, five in number, which the Tribunal made were directed to the prosecution of Mr Cook's two applications. It is wholly undesirable that the process contemplated by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act should be fragmented by applications seeking to challenge intermediate directions or determinations made along the way to reaching an ultimate determination of the issue before the tribunal. Just in the same way that the Federal Court should be reluctant to fragment the criminal process by entertaining applications under the AD(JR) Act in relation to committal proceedings or trials and in particular intermediate rulings and determinations made in the course of committal proceedings…