GTE (Aust) Pty Ltd v Brown, J.J

[1987] FCA 2

I	? h
._1
" %

L "I

a ,;	i.	,. ,1:
4 SUITABLE ONLY FOR LIMITED DISTRIBUTION

- l

I N 'THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 1

!

l 1

NEW! SOUTH	WALES	DISTRICT REGISTRY	1	N o .	G.146	1984	of
1

GENERAL DIVISION	1
BETWEEN:

GTE (AUSTRALIA) PTY

LIMITED

A p p l l c a n t

- AND :

JOHN JOSEPH BROWN

M i n l s t e r o f S t a t e f o r

A d m i n l s t r a t i v e

S e r v i c e s a c t i n g f o r

and on b e h a l f o f t h e

Mlnls ter of S t a t e f o r

I n d u s t r y a n d Commerce

Respondent

I

MINUTE OF ORDER OF THE COURT

Judge Making Order : Burche t t J.

Where Order Made: Sydney

Date of Orde r : 6 J a n u a r y 1 9 8 7

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

T h e d e c l s i o n s a n d e a c h of t h e m p u b l i s h e g i n S p e c i a l

G a z e t t e No. S 4 6 d a t e d 9 February 1984 by Notices

1 9 8 4 / D 1 , 1 9 8 4 / D 2 a n d 1 9 8 4 / D 3 b e s e t a s i d e from a n d

I n c l u d i n g t h e i r d a t e of p u b l i c a t i o n .

L i b e r t y b e r e s e r v e d t o t h e A p p l l c a n t t o a p p l y o n 1 4

d a y s ' notice fo r r e l i e f i n r e s p e c t o f p a r a g r a p h 4 o f t h e

claims made i n t h e A p p l i c a t i o n .

T h e R e s p o n d e n t p a y t h e A p p l i c a n t ' s t a x e d costs of and

i n c i d e n t a l t o t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g t h e costs of

t h e a r g u m e n t a s t o t h e f o r m o f t h e o r d e r s .

S e t t l e m e n t a n d e n t r y of o r d e r s 1s d e a l t w i t h

of t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t R u l e s .

\ FEDERAL COURT OF

\	>	AUSTRALIA
PRINCIPAL REGISTRY

' c,

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRA	.LIA	1
-
)

NEW	SOUTH WALES DISTRICT	REGISTRY	1	No. G.146 of 1984
1

GENERAL DIVISION	)
BETWEEN:

GTE (AUSTRALIA) PTY

LIMITED

Applicant

- AND :

JOHN JOSEPH BROWN

Mlnister of State for

Administrative

Services acting for

and on behalf of the

Minister of State for

Industry and Commerce

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BURCHETT J.

On 31 October 1986 I published reasons in this matter in which I held that the Mlnister, in reaching his decision, had

d

I	denled the applicant natural justice, that significant errors of law had occurred in the making of the decision, and that a relevant consideration, whlch the Minlster was bound to take into
i	account, was not taken into account in the exercise of his powers
l	under the Customs Tarlff (Anti-Dumplng) Act 1975. I deferred the making of orders, and directed the applicant to brlng in short minutes of the orders It contended I should make. I have heard
further argument upon the short minutes submitted.

2.

The ditflculty which was ralsed concerned the proper

construction of s.l6(l)(a) of the Administrative Decisions

(Judicial Review) Act 1977, and Its application in the

circumstances. Counsel for the respondent argued that I should adopt the view that there is in effect a presumption that the setting aside of a decision should operate only from the date of

the order. However, In my dissenting judgment in N.C.A.

(Brisbane) Pty. Ltd. v. Simpson (Full Court, Fox, Neaves and

Burchett JJ.,	unreported, 19 November 1986)	I commented at p.37
on that view:

"Wlth respect, In the case where a decision is

set aside as not made according to law and the matter is remitted to the decision-maker,

I do not think the section evinces an

intention toc nfer some prlma facie temporary valldity upon the invalid decision. The section embraces a range of situations

from the quashing of a declsion (which

implies wholly expunglng it - cf. Cobissioner fo; Railways- (NSW) v. Cavanough

(1935) 53 C.L.R. 220 at 225) to the settina

aside- of part only of the -decision (which

implies at least partial validity) . ' I

It was not necessary for the majority in that case, to consider this question. But it was necessary for it to be considered ln Wattmaster Alco Pty. Limited v. Button (Full Court, Fox, Sheppard

and Wilcox JJ., unreported 18 December 1986). The ~ o i n t

judgment of Sheppard and Wilcox JJ. at page 8 concludes:

"In our opinion no presumption arises under

s.l6(l)(a) as to the appropriate date from which a decision should be quashed or set aside. The matter is left entirely to the

3 .

discre t ion o f t h e C o u r t . N e i t h e r is t h e r e

a n y o n u s u p o n a n y p a r t y t o demonstrate a

s p e c i a l r e a s o n f o r s e l e c t i n g a d a t e o t h e r

t h a n t h e d a t e o f t h e order. I t is f o r t h e

C o u r t , h a v i n g r e g a r d t o a l l r e l e v a n t

c i r c u m s t a n c e s , se lec t to amongs t t he

a l t e r n a t i v e s t h e d a t e w h l c h w i l l b e s t d o

j u s t i c e as b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s a n d a n y o t h e r

a f f e c t e d p e r s o n s . "

I n t h e Wattmaster a p p e a l i t w a s p o i n t e d o u t t h a t s u b s t a n t l a l

amoun t s o f dumping du ty had been c l a lmed by t he Minis ter , and

p a i d b y t h e a p p e l l a n t , p r i o r t o t h e d e l i v e r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t of

t h e C o u r t t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n t o i m p o s e t h e d u t y was i n v a l i d . T h e

r e q u i r e m e n t t o l o d g e c a s h s e c u r i t i e s u n d e r s.42 of t he Cus toms

- Act 1901, i n t h e p r e s e n t case, p r o d u c e d t h e same r e s u l t .

I n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , I d o n o t t h l n k i t w o u l d b e a

correct e x e r c l s e o f d i s c r e t i o n t o l e a v e t h e d e c i s i o n o n f o o t f o r

a n y p e r i o d , h o w e v e r b r i e f , w h i c h m i g h t c o n f e r l e g l t i m a c y u p o n

I

e x a c t i o n s t o w h i c h i t g a v e r i s e . T h e d e c l s i o n s h o u l d b e s e t

i

a s i d e e n t i r e l y , a s I h a v e h e l d i t was n o t l a w f u l l y m a d e . I t

s h o u l d b e se t a s i d e a s a t and from i ts d a t e .

I

On t h e bas i s t h a t I s h o u l d m a k e a n order i n t h i s f o r m ,

t h e a p p l i c a n t c o n t e n d e d t h a t I s h o u l d a l so , p u r s u a n t t o

s . l 6 ( l ) ( d ) of t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e D e c i s l o n s (Judicial Review) A c t ,

make a n o r d e r e q u i r i n g t h e M i n i s t e r t o r e f u n d t h e a m o u n t s of

d u t y l e v i e d u n d e r t h e i n v a l i d d e c i s i o n . A s imi la r o r d e r was

s o u g h t i n t h e Wattmaster a p p e a l , b u t h e F u l l C o u r t d e c l i n e d to

make t h a t o r d e r , t h e q u e s t l o n n o t hav ing been raised a t f i r s t

'r , 4 .

i n s t a n c e . I n t h e present case, t h o u g h t h e a p p l i c a t l o n s o u g h t

s u c h a n o r d e r , n o a t t e n t i o n was g i v e n a t t h e h e a r i n g t o t h e

i s s u e s i n v o l v e d I n t h a t a s p e c t o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . If a t t e n t i o n

had been g lven t o i t , a d d i t l o n a l e v l d e n c e m u s t h a v e b e e n ca l led

b y t h e a p p l l c a n t , a n d p e r h a p s a l s o by t h e r e s p o n d e n t . I n my

v i e w , t h e lack of t h a t e v i d e n c e was n o t r emed ied by t he t ende r by

t h e a p p l i c a n t , upon t h e b r i n g i n g i n o f s h o r t m i n u t e s o f orders,

o f f u r t h e r materlal w h l c h , i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r c l r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e

r e s p o n d e n t h a d t h e n o r ea l o p p o r t u n l t y t o answer . I t h l n k I

s h o u l d a t t h l s s t a g e s i m p l y s e t a s i d e t h e l n v a l l d d e c i s i o n ,

l e a v l n g i t t o t h e p a r t l e s t o w o r k o u t t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s or t o t a k e

a n y f u r t h e r a c t i o n w h i c h may b e n e c e s s a r y . B u t I s h a l l r e s e r v e

l l b e r t y t o t h e a p p l i c a n t to a p p l y o n f o u r t e e n d a y s ' n o t l c e .

C o u n s e l for t h e r e s p o n d e n t s u b m i t t e d t h a t h e b r i n g i n g

i n o f t h e s h o r t m l n u t e s p r i o r to t h e d e l i v e r y o f j u d g m e n t b y t h e

F u l l C o u r t I n t h e Wattmaster a p p e a l was premature. However , the

a p p l l c a n t was i n my o p i n i o n e n t i t l e d t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e o r d e r i n

respect of t h e i n v a l l d e c i s i o n . I t h i n k t h e a p p l i c a n t s h o u l d

have i ts costs of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g t h e costs o f t h e

a r g u m e n t a s t o t h e form o f t h e o r d e r s . I s h a l l h a k e orders

a c c o r d l n g l y .

I c e r t l f y t h a t t h i s and t h e

p r e c e d i n g t h r e e ( 3 ) pages are

a t r u e c o p y of t h e R e a s o n s for

Judgment h e r e i n o f h i s H o n o u r

Mr. J u s t l c e B u r c h e t t .

'A5soclate

Dated: 6 J a n u a r y , 1987 .