Esso Australia Resourses Ltd v Collector of Customs (Victoria) - [1992] FCA 57

JUDGMENT No. .l.s.?.../..-q~

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALJA )

1 No. NG 2 of 91

GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FROM THE GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAI,

CONSTITUTBD BY HIS HONOUR, JUSTICE GRAY (PRESIDENTIAI. MEMBER)

BETWEEN: E S S 0 A U S T R A L I A
RESOURCES LIMITED
First Applicant
BHP PETROLEUM (BASS
STRAIT) PTY LIMITED
Second Applicant

AND : COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
(VICTORIA)
Respondent

CORAM: BEAIJMONT, WIGOX h O'CONNOR JJ
PLACE : SYDNEY
DATE : 18 FEBRUARY 1992

MINUTES OF ORDER

Note : Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in

Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

The applicants pay to the respondent his costs of the appeal.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) No. NG 2 of 91
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) 1
1
GENERAL DIVISION 1

ON APPEAL FROM THE GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CONSTITUTED BY HIS HONOUR, JUSTICE GRAY (PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER)

BETWEEN: ESSO AUSTRALIA
RESOURCES LIMITED
First Applicant

BHP PETROLEUW (BASS STFtAIT) PTY LIMITED
Second Applicant
AND : COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
(VICTORIA)
Respondent

corn: BEAUMONT, WILCOX & O'CONNOR JJ
PLACE : SYDNEY
DATE : 18 FEBRUARY 1992

EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

TEE COURT: The issue raised by this appeal is one of

considerable importance to the parties. Nonetheless, we
entertain no doubt about the proper result, so it is

appropriate to dispose of the matter immediately.

We are of the opinion that the conclusion expressed

by Gray J, constituting the Administrative Appeals Tribunal,

is plainly correct, and for the reasons which his Honour gave.

In a very careful argument, counsel for the applicants have

i
L

, i
L '
2. I

critically analysed his Honour's reasoning; but they have not

succeeded in causing us to doubt its correctness.

As we are prepared to adopt that reasoning, it is l .
I

not necessary for us to deal with the matter at any length.

- ..

We simply make two general comments, out of deference to the arguments put by counsel to us.

I-: I
The first comment concerns the use of the word

"such", where lastly appearing in clause 2 of by-law 82. We agree with counsel for the applicants that this word is used generically, to refer back to "unstabilised crude petroleum

oil or naturally occurring petroleum gas". But counsel for
the applicants say that it introduces the further

qualification that the relevant oil or gas must be

I '

"incremental", that is unable to be exploited with existing 1
I
i

production facilities, or alternatively, be oil or gas which I
l

is within an "accumulation" or pool from which there was no

I,

production before 17 August 1977. C

Neither "incremental" nor "accumulation" appears in

the text of the by-law and, as counsel concede, a reader would

1: 1.

not gain any inkling of either of these additional ?
!

qualifications simply by reading the by-law. The argument

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 Esso Australia Resourses Ltd v Collector of Customs (Victori...

Details

AGLC: Esso Australia Resourses Ltd v Collector of Customs (Victoria) [1992] FCA 57
Case: [1992] FCA 57
Decision Date: 18 Feb 1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Esso Australia Resources Limited and BHP Petroleum (Bass Strait) Pty Limited v Collector of Customs (Victoria) was brought before the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants challenged the interpretation and application of certain provisions in by-law 82, which pertains to the importation of oil and gas. The primary dispute revolves around the definition of the term "field" in the context of the by-law, and whether it includes new developments within existing fields. The secondary issue concerns the use of the word "such" in clause 2 of the by-law, and whether it introduces additional qualifications not explicitly stated in the text.

The legal issues that the court had to address included the interpretation of the term "field" as used in by-law 82, and whether it should be given a technical meaning in line with the definitions provided by the American Petroleum Institute and the Bureau of Mineral Resources. The court also considered whether extrinsic materials, such as the Treasurer's budget speech, could be used to discern the legislative purpose and, if so, whether they provided any assistance in understanding the meaning of "fields not yet in production."

The court found that the term "field" in by-law 82 should be given a technical meaning, consistent with the definitions provided by the American Petroleum Institute and the Bureau of Mineral Resources. It concluded that the word "field" referred to a geographical area defined by subterranean geological characteristics, and not to a quantity of oil or gas. The court further held that the word "such" in clause 2 of the by-law did not introduce any additional qualifications not explicitly stated in the text. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the applicants to pay the respondent's costs.

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The court held that the term "field" in by-law 82 should be interpreted in accordance with the technical definitions provided by the American Petroleum Institute and the Bureau of Mineral Resources, and not as a quantity of oil or gas. The court also found that the word "such" in clause 2 of the by-law did not introduce any additional qualifications not explicitly stated in the text. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders