Industry Research and Development Board v IMT Ltd - [2001] FCA 85

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Industry Research and Development Board v IMT Ltd [2001] FCA 85
PROCEDURE – appeals - conceded appeal from tribunal – whether court should determine non-conceded grounds of appeal before remission – whether remission should be to tribunal differently constituted
Industry Research and Development Act 1986 (Cth), ss 39L, 39LA
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 44
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), s 73B
Kovalev v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1999) 59 ALD 71, considered
Kapagama v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1881, referred to
Northern NSW FM Pty Limited v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 26 FCR 39, followed
Versatile Carpets Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, Sweeney, Woodward and Davies JJ, 21 February 1985), considered
Australian Railways Union & Ors; Ex parte Public Transport Corporation (1993) 117 ALR 17 at 25, referred to
Australian Trade Commission v Underwood Exports Pty Ltd (1997) 49 ALD 426, referred to
Brackenreg v Comcare Australia (1995) 56 FCR 335 at 343-52, referred to
Mabru Nominees Pty Ltd as Trustee of the Urban Family Trust No. 2 Trust v Commissioner of Taxation (1997) ATC 4902 at 4911; 37 ATR 97, referred to
Steedman v Baulkham Hills Shire Council (No. 2) (Court of Appeal NSW, 13 August 1993), referred to
INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD v IMT LIMITED
W 16 of 2000
RD NICHOLSON J
16 FEBRUARY 2001
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W 16 of 2000

BETWEEN:

INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
APPLICANT

AND:

IMT LIMITED
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

R D NICHOLSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 FEBRUARY 2001

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be allowed.
2.The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 20 January 2000 be set aside.
3.The matter be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as differently constituted to be determined according to law.
4.The hearing dates for the appeal on 13/14 March 2001 be vacated.
5.There be no order as to costs.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W 16 of 2000

BETWEEN:

INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
APPLICANT

AND:

IMT LIMITED
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

R D NICHOLSON J

DATE:

16 FEBRUARY 2001

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The respondent brings a motion seeking an order that the matter be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), as originally constituted (subject to the availability of the relevant members) to be determined according to law without the hearing of further evidence other than as determined by the Tribunal.
The motion arises as the consequence of the lodgement of a notice of appeal by the applicant from the decision or determination of the Tribunal on 20 January 2000. The Tribunal then decided or determined that “with regard to the projects referred to as the 3.3M craft, the 5M craft and the sail powered…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Industry Research and Development Board v IMT Ltd 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: [2001] FCA 85
Decision Date: 16 FEBRUARY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Industry Research and Development Board v IMT Ltd, the appellant, Industry Research and Development Board, appealed against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which had set aside an earlier decision of the appellant. The respondent, IMT Ltd, sought to have the appeal dismissed and for the matter to be remitted back to the original tribunal. The dispute centred on the appropriate course of action following an appeal from the AAT, specifically whether the matter should be remitted to the original tribunal or to a differently constituted tribunal. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appeal should be remitted to the original tribunal or to a differently constituted tribunal. The court considered the nature of the evidence presented, the findings of credibility, and the procedural fairness of the original tribunal's decision. The court was required to balance the inconvenience of re-hearing extensive evidence against the necessity of ensuring that the tribunal making the final decision had a fair and unbiased perspective on the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.

The court held that, while remission to a differently constituted tribunal was the usual practice, there were specific factors in this case that warranted deviation from that practice. The court found that the tribunal had made credibility findings, and these findings were critical to the determination of the case. Given the volume of evidence and the importance of the credibility issues, the court concluded that it was appropriate to remit the matter to a differently constituted tribunal to ensure that the final decision was made without any bias or preconceptions. The court rejected the notion that the matter should be remitted to the original tribunal as it would not be fair to the parties involved.

The court made several orders in light of its decision. The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the AAT made on 20 January 2000 was set aside. The matter was remitted to the AAT as differently constituted to be determined according to law. The hearing dates for the appeal on 13/14 March 2001 were vacated, and there was no order as to costs. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring procedural fairness and the impartiality of tribunals in administrative law matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 20 January 2000 be set aside.

3. The matter be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as differently constituted to be determined according to law.

4. The hearing dates for the appeal on 13/14 March 2001 be vacated.

5. There be no order as to costs.

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

Approaching the matter in terms of these authorities I start from the usual position that remission to a differently constituted tribunal is the ordinary way to proceed. There are factors which make that inconvenient and those factors relate to the volume of evidence previously heard. To set against that is the consideration that it is open to either of the parties upon remission to a differently constituted tribunal to make submissions to that tribunal on the degree to which evidence given to the former tribunal may be utilised without recall by the differently constituted tribunal. Critically, however, this is a case involving credibility findings particularly in relation to the profound conflict in the evidence between Mr Fisher and Mr Harman. While it is the case here that there was no express finding of the credibility of a party or a major witness, it is clear that the Tribunal has in fact formed views in relation to that credibility or else it could not have arrived at the determination which it made. Additionally, this is a case where the existence of credibility issues was expressly recorded by the Tribunal. Those considerations make it apparent that the ordinary practice should apply. Conclusion For these reasons I consider that the respondent’s motion should be granted but on the basis that remission is to a tribunal differently constituted.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W 16 of 2000

BETWEEN:	INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD APPLICANT
AND:	IMT LIMITED RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	R D NICHOLSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 FEBRUARY 2001
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

JUDGE:	R D NICHOLSON J
DATE:	16 FEBRUARY 2001
PLACE:	PERTH