Fuller, Donald v Minister for Primary Industries and Energy Summary

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WAG 94 of 1997

BETWEEN:

DONALD FULLER
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND ENERGY
First Respondent

NATIONAL REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
Second Respondent

JUDGES:

BURCHETT, LEE AND CARR JJ

DATE:

15 OCTOBER 1997

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT (delivered ex tempore by Burchett J)

The Court has heard argument on the question of whether an appeal as of right purportedly lodged in this matter was competent, the respondents contending that it was not competent because the decision was interlocutory in nature, being a decision on an application for an extension of time to bring proceedings under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

The respondents were able to point to Hall v The Nominal Defendant (1966) 117 CLR 423 at pages 440, 444 and 447, and to a decision of a Full Court of this Court in Barrett v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 18 ALD 129 at 130. The Court is unable to distinguish these decisions and accordingly holds that the appeal is not competent.

It should be added that, as Mr Fuller pointed out in his argument, there is a degree of artificiality about regarding a decision of this kind as other than final. But the remedy the law provides for that is that the practical effect of the decision may be taken into account on an application for leave, and is an important factor to be measured on that application. However, the order of the Court is that the objection to competency be upheld. The reasons that I have given are the reasons of the Court.

(Later in the day, the Court added to this order a further order that there be no order as to the costs of the motion for dismissal of the appeal as incompetent.)

I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court

Associate:

Dated:

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr D Fuller appeared in person

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr P R Macliver

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

Counsel for the Second Respondent:

Mr W S Martin, QC with
Mr M Van Brakel

Solicitors for the Second Respondent:

Date of Hearing:

Messrs Clayton Utz

15 October 1997

Date of Judgment: 15 October 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Donald Fuller versus the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, with the National Registration Authority as the second respondent, was heard in the Federal Court of Australia in Western Australia. The applicant, Donald Fuller, sought to appeal a decision related to an application for an extension of time to bring proceedings under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The respondents argued that the appeal was not competent because the decision in question was interlocutory in nature, and thus not final. They cited relevant precedents to support their argument.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appeal was competent, considering the interlocutory nature of the decision. The respondents relied on Hall v The Nominal Defendant and a Full Court decision in Barrett v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs to assert that the appeal was not competent. The court found itself unable to distinguish these precedents and thus upheld the respondents' contention.

The Federal Court held that the appeal was not competent due to the interlocutory nature of the decision, despite acknowledging the artificiality in treating such a decision as anything other than final. The court noted that the practical effect of the decision could be considered on an application for leave to appeal, but the order was that the objection to competency be upheld. The court also added that there be no order as to the costs of the motion for dismissal of the appeal as incompetent. The reasons provided by Burchett J were adopted as the reasons of the Court.

Fuller, Donald v Minister for Primary Industries and Energy

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAG 94 of 1997

JUDGES:	BURCHETT, LEE AND CARR JJ
DATE:	15 OCTOBER 1997
PLACE:	PERTH

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr D Fuller appeared in person
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr P R Macliver
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	Mr W S Martin, QC with Mr M Van Brakel
Solicitors for the Second Respondent: Date of Hearing:	Messrs Clayton Utz 15 October 1997
Date of Judgment:	15 October 1997