aid to persons ("the Grantees"), who are applicants in
proceedings in this Court, which proceedings are in the
Western Australian registry of the Court. The application
also seeks an order with respect to a decision not to issue
a statement under s.13 of the Administrative Decisions

l - 3 0 APR 1990

(Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)("the ADJR ~ct"), with
respect to that grant of legal aid.

The legal aid was granted in the Western Australian

proceedings under s.170 of the Trade Practices Act 1974

(Cth) which provides:-

"(1) A person -

(a)

who has instituted, or proposes to institute, a proceeding before the Commission or the Tribunal, or a
proceeding before the Court under Part V1
or section 163A;
(b) who is entitled to participate, or has
been permitted to intervene, in a
proceeding before the Commission or the
Tribunal; or
(C) against whom a proceeding before the
Court has been instituted under Part V1
or section 163A,
may apply to the Attorney-General for a grant
of assistance under this section in respect of
the proceeding.

under sub-section (l), the Attorney-General, (2) Where an application is made by a person
or an officer of the Australian Public Service
authorized in writing by the Attorney-General,
may, if he is satisfied that it would involve
hardship to that person to refuse the
application and that, in all the
circumstances, it is reasonable that the
application should be granted, authorize the
grant by the Commonwealth to the person,
either unconditionally or subject to such
conditions as the Attorney-General or officer
determines, of such legal or financial
assistance in relation to the proceeding as

the Attorney-General or officer determines."
On 5 January 1990, Nr Wheeler, an officer of the

Office of Legal Aid Administration of the Commonwealth
Attorney-General's Department, wrote to the solicitors for
the applicants in the Western Australian proceedings

"I refer to your letter of 21/12/1989 about
your clients' case in Federal Court WAG 121 of
1988. I am now satisfied on the public
interest aspects, importance and prospects of
success of the case.
Financial assistance has been authorized for
the purpose of your clients' legal
representation in the proceeding."
Subsequently, when asked for a statement of the

reasons for that decision, Mr Wheeler said in a letter dated

15 January 1990:-

"Applications for financial assistance under
s.170 Trade Practices Act are dealt with on a
confidential basis. Decisions have to take
into account the financial and domestic
circumstances of applicants and the nature,
merits, and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Eatts v Dawson

Details

AGLC: Eatts v Dawson [1990] FCA 158
Case: [1990] FCA 158
Decision Date: 11 Apr 1990

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Eatts v Dawson involved an application by Burswood Management Limited, Dallas Reginald Dempster, and Lin Kok Thay (the applicants) to review the grant of legal aid provided to them in proceedings in the Western Australian registry of the Court. The applicants sought an order in relation to the refusal to issue a statement under section 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 concerning the grant of legal aid. The legal aid was granted under section 170 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, which allows for assistance to be given to individuals involved in specific legal proceedings.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the decision to grant legal aid was subject to a requirement to issue a statement under section 13 of the ADJR Act, and if not, whether it was a decision in connection with the institution or conduct of proceedings in a civil court, thereby exempt from judicial review under the ADJR Act. The Court had to determine whether the decision to grant legal aid was an integral part of the proceedings in the Western Australian Court and if it was sufficiently connected to the conduct of the proceedings to be exempt from the ADJR Act.

Davies J found that the decision to grant legal aid, while confidential, did not necessarily preclude the issuance of a statement under section 13 of the ADJR Act if the remaining information did not render the statement false or misleading. The Court held that the burden of proving that the statement would be false or misleading if confidential material was omitted lay with the decision-maker. The Court further determined that the grant of legal aid was a decision in connection with the conduct of the proceedings in the Western Australian Court as it was a decision that enabled the proceedings to be pursued. Consequently, the decision to grant legal aid was exempt from the operation of section 13 of the ADJR Act under paragraph (f) of Schedule 2, which excludes decisions in connection with the institution or conduct of civil proceedings. The Court dismissed the application as the applicants could not proceed with their challenge to the grant of legal aid without a statement under section 13 of the ADJR Act, and no order was made as to costs.

Orders