Election Importing Co Pty Ltd v Courtice

Election Importing Co. Pty. Ltd. sought an interlocutory injunction against the Minister of State for Trade and Customs, the Comptroller-General of Customs, and the Collector of Customs of New South Wales. The company, which imported watches and watch movements, applied to restrain the defendants from cancelling import licence No. 094585 or taking action based on its purported cancellation. The motion was heard by Williams J. in the High Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine several legal issues concerning the interpretation and application of the Customs (Import Licensing) Regulations. These included whether a licence could be revoked after it had been acted upon, whether a licence could be revoked in part rather than in its entirety, and whether the power to revoke a licence was administrative or quasi-judicial, necessitating adherence to natural justice principles. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the discretion to revoke a licence was unfettered or subject to limitations of good faith and relevance.

Williams J. held that the powers conferred by the Customs (Import Licensing) Regulations were administrative in nature, meaning the Minister or delegate was not bound to act judicially. The court found no justification for limiting the power of revocation to the period before a licence was acted upon, nor was there any basis to restrict revocation to the entirety of a licence; partial revocation was permissible provided the goods had not yet been imported. Furthermore, the court determined that the power to revoke a licence was not arbitrary but must be exercised bona fide and without regard to irrelevant considerations, though the scope of judicial review for such administrative discretions was limited.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory injunction. Williams J. concluded that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a breach of the licence conditions or that the reasons for revocation were so irrelevant as to fall outside the scope and purpose of the regulations. The defendants' costs were to be their costs in the action.