HECEC Australia Pty Ltd v Hydro-Electric Corp

Link copied
Case Copied 47 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HECEC Australia Pty Ltd v Hydro-Electric Corp [1999] FCA 822

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether the applicant’s pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action and cause or tend to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay – circumstances where the amended application is to be dismissed on the ground that no reasonable cause of action was disclosed – whether it is reasonably arguable that the doctrine of unconscionability is only available in contractual or contract-type situations where commitment of disadvantaged party was procured by unconscionable conduct – when “may” means “must” in a statute – principles of promissory estoppel – causal nexus between damages and conduct contravening Trade Practices Act – anticipatory breaches of contract – whether damages only available after termination of contract – novation of contracts – duty of government to make decisions to accord with existing contracts and representations – presumed duty to afford procedural fairness – whether contrary to statutory intention – taking relevant considerations into account – Wednesbury unreasonableness

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 51AA, 51A, 52, 75B(1), 82, 87
Electricity Companies Act 1997 (Tas) s 10(2), (3)

Federal Court Rules O 6 r 9, O 11 r 6, O 20 r 2

Burton v Shire of Bairnsdale [1908] 7 CLR 76, applied
Blomley v Ryan [1956] 99 CLR 362, applied
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners [1949] 78 CLR 62, applied
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] 112 CLR 125, applied
Finance Facilities Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1971] 127 CLR 106, referred to
Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio [1983] 151 CLR 447, applied
Gould v Vaggelas [1985] 157 CLR 215, referred to
Commonwealth v Tasmania (The Tasmanian Dams Case) [1983] 158 CLR 1, referred to
Yorke v Lucas [1985] 158 CLR 661, discussed
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] 162 CLR 24, referred to
Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher [1988] 164 CLR 387, referred to/discussed
Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson [1990] 169 CLR 594, referred to
The Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen [1990] 170 CLR 394, discussed/followed
Annetts v McCann [1990] 170 CLR 596, applied
Wardley Australia Ltd v State of Western Australia [1992] 175 CLR 514, applied
Commissioner of State Revenue (Vic) v Royal Insurance Australia Ltd [1994] 182 CLR 51, referred to
Bevanere Pty Ltd v Lubidineuse [1985] 7 FCR 325, applied
Bond Corporation Pty Ltd v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd [1987] 14 FCR 215, referred to
Argy v Blunt & Lane Cove Real Estate Pty Ltd [1990] 26 FCR 112, referred to
Janssen-Cilag Pty Ltd v Pfizer Pty Ltd [1992] 37 FCR 526, applied
Ku-ring-gai Co-operative Building Society (No 12) Ltd [1978] 36 FLR 134, applied
Yorke v Lucas [1985] 80 FLR 143, discussed

H 1976 Nominees Pty Ltd v Galli & Anor [1979] 30 ALR 181, referred to
Pappas v Soulac Pty…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read HECEC Australia Pty Ltd v Hydro-Electric Corp 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[1999] FCA 822
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia was asked to consider a dispute between HECEC Australia Pty Ltd, the applicant, and the Hydro-Electric Corporation, the respondent. The applicant sought a review of a decision made by the respondent to deny it a permit for the construction of a hydro-electric power station on public land. The applicant argued that the decision was unreasonable, and that it had not been afforded procedural fairness.

The legal issues before the court were whether the decision was unreasonable, and whether the applicant had been denied procedural fairness. The court needed to consider whether the respondent had followed the correct process in making the decision, and whether the decision was based on relevant and material considerations. The court also needed to consider whether the applicant had been given an opportunity to respond to any material that was adverse to its case.

The court found that the decision was unreasonable and that the applicant had not been afforded procedural fairness. The court found that the respondent had failed to follow the correct process in making the decision, and that the decision was not based on relevant and material considerations. The court also found that the applicant had not been given an opportunity to respond to any material that was adverse to its case. The court found that the applicant was entitled to a review of the decision, and that the decision should be set aside. The court also ordered that the respondents pay the applicant’s costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. the motions of the respondents dated 19 and 26 October 1998 be dismissed

2. the respondents pay the applicant’s costs

Note: Settlement and entry of orders are 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.