FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Grapsas v Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development [2020] FCA 525
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Grapsas v Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Developme... 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] FCA 525
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court considered whether the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of regulation 13(1)(ac), particularly regarding the requirement that the applicant must have owned the vehicle while overseas for a continuous period of at least 12 months immediately before arriving in Australia. The Court found that the Tribunal's interpretation was consistent with previous decisions and aligned with the plain meaning of the regulation, taking into account its context and purpose. The Court noted that the regulation required the applicant to have owned the vehicle while overseas for the specified period before arriving in Australia with the intent to remain there indefinitely.
The Court concluded that the Tribunal did not make an error of law in its interpretation of regulation 13(1)(ac) and that it was not appropriate for the Court to make a finding of fact regarding whether Mr Grapsas met the criteria under the regulation. The Court dismissed the appeal and ordered that Mr Grapsas pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application by way of appeal be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
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
The respondent also submitted that if this Court were to find an error of law on the part of the Tribunal, then the Court nonetheless would not have power pursuant to s 44(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act to make the finding of fact sought by the applicant that his application met all of the criteria in regs 13(1)(aa)-(e). Further, the respondent submitted that there was no basis for making the finding of fact sought by the applicant, including by noting that he maintained arguments put to the Tribunal that the applicant did not satisfy other requirements in reg 13, which the Tribunal did not decide.ConsiderationQuestion 2 – the proper construction of regulation 13(1)(ac) For substantially the reasons stated by the Tribunal at [25] of its reasons and the additional reasons advanced by the respondent before this Court, I agree with the Tribunal’s construction of reg 13(1)(ac), being that it imposed a requirement that the applicant was overseas while he owned the vehicle for a continuous period of 12 months immediately before arriving in Australia for the relevant purpose. As stated by the Tribunal at [25(b)] and [25(c)] of its reasons, that construction accords with the construction adopted in the earlier decisions of the Tribunal in Miller and Minister for Infrastructure [2010] AATA 608 at [9] (Kenny SM) and Kowald and Minister for Infrastructure [2010] AATA 1018 at [14] (Dunne SM). For ease of reference, I have again extracted the regulation, in context with some of the immediately surrounding provisions, below –13Approval to import vehicle without an identification plate if owned and used by applicant overseas(1)The Minister may approve an application to import a nonstandard road vehicle or a road vehicle that does not have an identification plate if the Minister is satisfied that:(aa)the applicant owns the vehicle at the time the application is made; and(ab)the applicant acquired ownership of the vehicle overseas; and(ac)the applicant owned the vehicle while overseas and owned it for a continuous period of at least 12 months immediately before arriving in Australia for the purpose of remaining in Australia indefinitely as mentioned in paragraph (b); and(ad)during that period of ownership the vehicle was available to the applicant for use in transport; and… The starting point for the proper construction of a legislative provision is its text, while at the same time having regard to its context and purpose: Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (Northern Territory) [2009] HCA 41; 239 CLR 27 at [47] (Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ). Context should be regarded at this first stage, not some later stage, and should be regarded in its widest sense: SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 34; 262 CLR 362 at [14] (Kiefel CJ, Nettle and Gordon JJ). Context includes legislative history and extrinsic materials: Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] [HCA] 55; 250 CLR 503 at [39] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Bell and Gageler JJ). It is permissible to have regard to extrinsic material in order to identify the context and purpose of a statutory provision, including the identification of any mischief to which a legislative amendment was directed: eg, Li v Chief of Army [2013] HCA 49; 250 CLR 328 at [17]; Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Mammoet Australia Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 36; 248 CLR 619 at [59]; Akiba v The Commonwealth [2013] HCA 33; 250 CLR 209 at [31]; Commissioner of Taxation of The Commonwealth of Australia v Unit Trend Services Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 16; 250 CLR 523 at [54]-[55]. The examination of extrinsic material for that purpose may occur at the first stage and does not first require the identification of ambiguity in the text of the provision being considered: see generally the discussion in CPB Contractors Pty Limited v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union [2019] FCAFC 70 at [44]-[61] (O’Callaghan and Wheelahan JJ).