Ginnane v Diners Club Limited

Case [1993] FCA 167

Re: FOSTER'S BREWING GROUP LIMITED and ELDERS RURAL FINANCE LIMITED
And: CHARLES WILLIAM TAPP; COMPTROLLER-GENERAL OF CUSTOMS; THE COLLECTOR OF
CUSTOMS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) and STEVE GREEN (REGIONAL MANAGER INLAND
REVENUE)
No. S G20 of 1992
FED No. 167
Number of pages - 11
Practice and Procedure - Administrative Law
(1993) 41 FCR 417
(1993) 30 ALD 825 (extract)

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA


SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
O'Loughlin(1) J.
CATCHWORDS

Practice and Procedure - Proceedings instituted in Federal Court and also in Supreme Court of the Northern Territory - whether Federal Court proceedings should be stayed - identification of issues in dispute in the proceedings.

Administrative Law - Whether an Authority to pay a diesel fuel rebate can be a decision set out in Schedule 1(e) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act.

Customs Act 1901 (Cth): s164

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth): s5; s3; schedule 1 para (e)

Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v. The Boots Company (Australia) Pty Ltd (1992) 34 FCR 287 (distinguished)

Hughes Motor Service Pty. Ltd. v. Wang Computer Pty. Ltd. (1978) 35 FLR 346 (referred to)

Bennett Honda Pty. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1984) 4 FCR 99 (followed)

Tooheys Ltd v. Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (1981) 36 ALR 64 (referred to)

HEARING

ADELAIDE, 14 October 1992

#DATE 26:3:1993

Counsel for the Applicants : Mr. W.J.N. Wells QC

and Mr. D.P. Rydon

Solicitors for the Applicants : Messrs Finlaysons

Counsel for the First Respondents : Mr. G.G. Holland

Solicitors for the First Respondents : Messrs Michell Sillar

Lynch and Meyer

Counsel for the Second Respondents : Ms. S.J. Singh

Solicitors for the Second Australian Government
Respondents : Solicitor

ORDER
1. Save for the question of the proper construction of s164 of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) the application be dismissed.

2. The second respondents pay the costs of the applicants and of the first respondent.

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

JUDGE1

O'LOUGHLIN J. Charles William Tapp, the first named respondent, died on 23 May 1992. Prior to his death, he and members of his family became embroiled in litigation in this Court and in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia with the two applicants and another company in the same group, Elders Ltd. It will be sufficient, for the purposes of these reasons, to refer to the applicants in these proceedings and to the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court proceedings collectively as "the Elders Group" and to refer to the second respondents as the Australian Customs Service or "ACS".

  1. The history of the litigation is complex but it is necessary to recount some of it to understand the limited issues that are to be resolved in these proceedings. In his lifetime Mr. Tapp owned three cattle stations in the Northern Territory: "Killarney", "Maryfield" and "Roper Valley". Having borrowed heavily from the Elders Group upon the security of stock mortgages and mortgages…

Continue reading Ginnane v Diners Club Limited

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Fosters Brewing Group Ltd & Anor v. Tapp, C.W. & Ors [1993] FCA 167 ((1993) 41 FCR 417; (1993) 30 ALD 825)
Case
[1993] FCA 167
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ginnane v Diners Club Limited involves the plaintiff, Ginnane, and the defendants, Diners Club Limited and others. The dispute revolves around proceedings that were initiated both in the Federal Court and the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, with Ginnane seeking a stay of the Federal Court proceedings. The central issue is whether the Federal Court should stay its proceedings in favour of the Supreme Court, given the overlap in jurisdiction.

The legal issues before the court included determining whether the Federal Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, and if not, whether the proceedings in the Federal Court should be stayed in favour of the Supreme Court. The court was also tasked with interpreting section 164 of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth), which pertains to the jurisdiction of federal courts in matters involving customs and excise. The court needed to clarify the extent of this section's application to the current proceedings.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the jurisdictional overlap between the Federal Court and the Supreme Court, considering the nature of the claims and the applicability of section 164 of the Customs Act. The court concluded that while there was an overlap, the primary issue concerning the proper construction of section 164 fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The court determined that the application for a stay should be dismissed, except regarding the interpretation of section 164, which remained to be resolved. The court further ordered that the second respondents pay the costs of the applicants and the first respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Save for the question of the proper construction of s164 of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) the application be dismissed.

2. The second respondents pay the costs of the applicants and of the first respondent.

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

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.