Hartwig v PE Hack

[2007] FCA 1039

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hartwig v PE Hack [2007] FCA 1039

BRUCE JAMES HARTWIG v PE HACK, DEPUTY PRESIDENT, ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
QUD 193 OF 2007

KIEFEL J
6 JULY 2007
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QUD 193 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

BRUCE JAMES HARTWIG
Applicant

AND:

P E HACK DEPUTY PRESIDENT ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
First Respondent

THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL SERVICES
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	KIEFEL J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 JULY 2007
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Minister for Transport and Regional Services be joined as a party to the proceedings.

2.The application for interlocutory relief is dismissed.

3.The applicant pay the second respondent’s costs of the application.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QUD 193 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

BRUCE JAMES HARTWIG
Applicant

AND:

P E HACK DEPUTY PRESIDENT ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
First Respondent

THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL SERVICES
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	KIEFEL J
DATE:	6 JULY 2007
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Mr Hartwig seeks final orders from this Court setting aside a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the ‘AAT’) made on 17 May 2007 and declarations which have the effect of directing the Deputy President in relation to evidence which may be received.  The interlocutory orders which he seeks, and with which I am presently concerned, are: to suspend the order of 17 May 2007;  to direct the AAT no longer to deal with the matter, I infer until the substantive application is heard by this Court;  and orders which prevent any publication of the applicant’s name and ensure any hearing of his matter be in private.

2. The decision in question was in the nature of a direction by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the AAT Act’) concerning the further conduct of the hearing. It was that:

   ‘Both parties file in the Tribunal and serve on each other any additional evidence intended to be relied upon at the hearing on or before 2 July 2007.’

3. Clearly enough it is not a decision of the kind referred to in s 44 of the AAT Act, from which an appeal could be brought. The applicant bases his application upon the Administration Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), but that does not advance his position.  The decision is not final, operative, or determinative in any way of his rights. In any event, it seems clear enough the direction has been fastened upon by the applicant as a way of getting his matter into Court.  It does not reflect his real concern, which is with a ruling by the AAT on a question of evidence. 

4. The proceedings before the AAT involve a review of a decision refusing the applicant, or his companies, registration under the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 (Cth). One issue to be addressed in that regard is whether he is a fit and proper…