Garrett v The Chief Executive Officer of Austrade

In the Federal Court, Garrett sought judicial review of decisions by the Chief Executive Officer of Austrade, who had determined that Garrett was not entitled to a grant under the Trade Promotion Grants Act 1973 (Cth). Garrett applied for review in his capacity as trustee of a trust, and also claimed standing as a receiver of a company that had been wound up and as a discretionary beneficiary under the trust. The Chief Executive Officer objected to the competency of the proceeding on the basis that Garrett had no standing to bring the application. The primary issue before the court was whether Garrett had standing to bring the application for judicial review. The court considered whether standing arose from Garrett’s position as trustee, as receiver, or as a discretionary beneficiary under the trust. The court found that Garrett’s standing did not arise from his position as trustee because he had become trustee after the proceedings had commenced. The court further found that standing did not arise from his position as receiver because the company in respect of which he was receiver had been wound up. Finally, the court found that standing did not arise from Garrett’s position as discretionary beneficiary under the trust. The court held that the objection to competency was valid, dismissed the proceeding and ordered Garrett to pay the Chief Executive Officer’s costs.