Frugtniet and Migration Agents Registration Authority (Migration) - [2015] AATA 554

Frugtniet and Migration Agents Registration Authority [2015] AATA 554 (30 July 2015)
Division  GENERAL DIVISION
File Number  2014/5940
Re  RUDY FRUGTNIET

APPLICANT

And MIGRATION AGENTS REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal  Deputy President S A Forgie
Date  30 July 2015
Place  Melbourne
The Tribunal has decided:
1.On or before 11 September 2015, the applicant must give to the Tribunal and the respondent:
(a)any witness statement from any witnesses proposed to be called at the hearing;
(b)all reports, records and any other documents on which the applicant intends to rely at the hearing; and

(c) a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions; and

2.On or before 9 October 2015, the respondent must give to the Tribunal and the applicant:
(a)any witness statement from any witnesses proposed to be called at the hearing;
(b)all reports, records and any other documents on which the respondent intends to rely at the hearing; and

(c) a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.

…[sgd] S A Forgie…….
Deputy President

CATCHWORDS
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applicant’s objection to lodging statement of facts and contentions and evidentiary material before respondent – claim of penalty privilege – whether privilege extends to administrative proceedings – procedural rule confined to judicial proceedings – no statutory provision to contrary – consideration of material gathered by respondent using its investigative powers and otherwise and lodged as obliged to do – role of Tribunal – opportunity for each party to present its case – applicant to lodge Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions and evidentiary material before respondent
LEGAL PRINCIPLES - penalty privilege - privilege against self-incrimination – corporations and individuals distinguished
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975; sections 18B, 33, 36, 36B, 37, 39
Corporations Act 2001; sections 180, 181, 183, 206A, 206F, 206G, 1317E, 1317G, 1043A
Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); sections 81, 82 and 191
Criminal Code Act 1995; section 137.1
Customs Act 1901; sections 254, 255
Evidence Act 2008 (Vic); section 187
Freedom of Information Act 1982

Migration Act 1958; sections 280, 286, 288, 288A, 289, 292, 295, 299, 300, 302, 303, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314
CASES

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Plymin [2002] VSC 56; (2002) 4 VR 168
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Mining Projects Group Ltd [2007] FCA 1620; (2007) 164 FCR 32
Bridal Fashions Pty Ltd v Comptroller-General of Customs (1996) 17 WAR 499; 140 ALR 681; 135 FLR 100
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 21
Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2002] HCA 49; (2002) 213 CLR 543; 192 ALR 561; 43 ACSR 189; 77 ALJR 40
Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd [1993] HCA 74; (1993) 178 CLR 477; 118 ALR 392; 82 LGERA 51
Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission VID177/2015
Frugtniet v Tax Practitioners Board VID707/2014

Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission [2013] HCA 39; (2013) 251 CLR 196;

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Frugtniet and Migration Agents Registration Authority (Migra... and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] AATA 554
Decision Date: 30 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case between Frugtniet and the Migration Agents Registration Authority, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with resolving a dispute concerning the lodging of a statement of facts, issues and contentions, and evidentiary material. Frugtniet, the applicant, raised an objection to the requirement of lodging these materials before the respondent, the Migration Agents Registration Authority, and invoked a claim of penalty privilege. The core legal issue the court had to address was whether this privilege extends to administrative proceedings such as those before the Tribunal. Additionally, the court considered the role of procedural rules in such administrative settings and whether any statutory provision could provide a different outcome.

The court examined the nature of penalty privilege and its application in both judicial and administrative contexts. It determined that the privilege against self-incrimination traditionally applied in judicial settings, but not in administrative proceedings. The court found that the procedural rule in question was confined to judicial proceedings, with no statutory provision suggesting otherwise. Consequently, the court concluded that the Tribunal was entitled to consider material gathered by the respondent using its investigative powers and otherwise, as mandated by procedural obligations. The court underscored the importance of each party presenting its case fully, which included lodging the required statements and evidentiary materials.

Ultimately, the Tribunal decided that the applicant must provide the Tribunal and the respondent with certain documents and a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions by a specified date. Similarly, the respondent was required to submit the same materials by another date. This decision underscores the procedural requirements for administrative hearings and ensures that both parties have an opportunity to present their cases comprehensively.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal has decided:

1. On or before 11 September 2015, the applicant must give to the Tribunal and the respondent:

(a) any witness statement from any witnesses proposed to be called at the hearing;

(b) all reports, records and any other documents on which the applicant intends to rely at the hearing; and

2. On or before 9 October 2015, the respondent must give to the Tribunal and the applicant:

(a) any witness statement from any witnesses proposed to be called at the hearing;

(b) all reports, records and any other documents on which the respondent intends to rely at the hearing; and

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.