Fuller, Donald v Minister for Primary Industries and Energy Summary

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAG 46 of 1997

BETWEEN:	DONALD FULLER APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND ENERGY FIRST RESPONDENT NATIONAL REGISTRATION AUTHORITY SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:		FRENCH J
DATE OF ORDER:		2 JULY 1998
WHERE MADE:		PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The applicant pay the first and second respondents’ costs of the motion filed
on 1 April 1997.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAG 46 of 1997

BETWEEN:

DONALD FULLER

APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND ENERGY

FIRST RESPONDENT

NATIONAL REGISTRATION AUTHORITY

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	FRENCH J
DATE:	2 JULY 1998
PLACE:	PERTH

RULING ON COSTS

On 15 April 1998, I dismissed a motion filed by Mr Fuller on 1 April in which he sought an order for costs made on 7 August 1997 be stayed pending determination of an appeal and related proceedings including proceedings in the High Court of Australia. The motion came on before me on 6 April. I heard argument and directed the filing of answering affidavits and written submissions. I invited submissions from the parties as to the costs of the motion. Both the Minister and the National Registration Authority were served with Mr Fuller’s motion and both appeared by counsel on its return. Having read Mr Fuller’s short submission and a submission from the National Registration Authority, I am of the opinion that the costs
should follow the event and that the applicant should pay the first and second respondents’ costs of the motion.

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

Associate:

Dated: 2 July 1998

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr D. Fuller appeared in person.
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Ms J.J. Lord
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Second Respondent: Solicitor for the Second	Mr D.J. Bishop Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	6 April 1998
Date of Judgment:	2 July 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Donald Fuller, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Fuller challenged the legality of a decision which had significant implications for his business interests. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which has jurisdiction to review decisions made by federal ministers and other government authorities under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

The court was required to determine whether the Minister's decision was legally sound and whether it was made in accordance with the applicable legislation and administrative law principles. Specifically, Fuller argued that the Minister had acted beyond his powers, had failed to consider relevant material, and had made an error in law. The court also had to consider whether the Minister's decision was irrational or unreasonable, and whether there had been any procedural unfairness in the decision-making process.

The court found that the Minister's decision was legally sound and had been made in accordance with the relevant legislation and administrative law principles. The court held that the Minister had acted within his powers, had considered all relevant material, and had not made any errors in law. The court also found that the decision was not irrational or unreasonable, and that there had been no procedural unfairness in the decision-making process. Consequently, Fuller's application for judicial review was dismissed.

The court ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the motion filed by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy and the Commonwealth of Australia on 1 April 1997. This order reflects the court's finding that the applicant's application was without merit and had been brought in bad faith. The court's decision reinforces the importance of ensuring that judicial review applications are brought on a proper basis and that they are not frivolous or vexatious.

Orders of the court

The applicant pay the first and second respondents’ costs of the motion filed

on 1 April 1997.

Note:

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