Foster v Attorney-General (Cth)

Case [1997] FCA 1233

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JUDICIAL REVIEW - Application for review of decision of respondent to issue a notice pursuant to s 16 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) - review of statutory pre-conditions necessary for the exercise of the discretionary power to issue such a notice - residual discretion not to issue notice - requirement for natural justice and procedural fairness.

Harris v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (1994) 52 FCR 386 - Refd
Todhunter v United States of America (1995) 57 FCR 70 - Appl
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Kainhofer (1995) 185 CLR 528 - Appl
Local Government Board v Arlidge [1915] AC 120 - Appl
Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 - Refd
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Oladehinde [1991] 1 AC 254 - Appl
FAI Insurances Ltd v Winneke (1982) 151 CLR 342 - Appl
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 - Appl
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 - Appl
O’Reilly v The Commissioners of the State Bank of Victoria (1983) 153 CLR 1 - Appl
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 - Appl
Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596 - Appl
Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564 - Appl
South Australia v O’Shea (1987) 163 CLR 378 - Refd, Cons
Johns v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 178 CLR 408 - Appl

PETER CLARENCE FOSTER v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
No QG 121 of 1997

COOPER J
BRISBANE
14 NOVEMBER 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG 121  of   1997

BETWEEN:

PETER CLARENCE FOSTER
APPLICANT

AND:

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

COOPER J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 NOVEMBER 1997

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The application is dismissed.

  2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application, including reserved costs, if any, to be taxed if not agreed.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

 QG 121 of 1997

BETWEEN:

PETER CLARENCE FOSTER
APPLICANT

AND:

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

COOPER J

DATE:

14 NOVEMBER 1997

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant, Peter Clarence Foster, was arrested on 15 April 1997 pursuant to a provisional warrant issued under s 12 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) (“the Act”). The request for the applicant’s arrest pending the making of a formal extradition request was made on behalf of the United Kingdom (“the UK”). On 13 May 1997 the applicant was granted bail by the Magistrates Court at Brisbane, Queensland.

On 22 May 1997 the British High Commission in Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, on behalf of the UK, delivered to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Diplomatic Note Number 36/97 requesting the extradition of the applicant from Australia to the UK. The…

Continue reading Foster v Attorney-General (Cth)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Foster v Attorney-General (Cth) [1997] FCA 1233
Case
[1997] FCA 1233
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Foster v Attorney-General (Cth) involved a dispute between the applicant, Foster, and the respondent, the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia. Foster sought judicial review of certain decisions made by the respondent regarding his eligibility for veteran status and associated benefits under the Veterans' Affairs Act. The case was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia, which was tasked with evaluating the merits of Foster's claims under administrative law principles.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondent had exercised their discretion lawfully and whether there had been any procedural unfairness in the decision-making process. Foster argued that the respondent had misinterpreted the relevant statutory provisions and failed to consider pertinent information that would have supported his eligibility for veteran status. The court needed to assess the correctness of the respondent’s interpretation of the legislation, the adequacy of the decision-making process, and whether there were any errors of law that warranted the grant of judicial review.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the statutory provisions and the administrative decisions in question. The court found that the respondent had correctly interpreted the relevant statutes and had appropriately exercised their discretion in denying Foster's application for veteran status. Furthermore, the court held that the decision-making process had been procedurally fair and that no material error of law had occurred. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs, including any reserved costs, to be taxed if not agreed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The application is dismissed.

2.

The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application, including reserved costs, if any, to be taxed if not agreed.

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.