Johns v Australian Securities Commission

In *Johns v Australian Securities Commission*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning the release of transcripts from a private examination conducted by the Australian Securities Commission (ASC). The appellant, Mr. Johns, had been examined privately under the *Australian Securities Commission Act 1989* (Cth). Subsequently, the ASC decided to release transcripts of these examinations to a Royal Commission for use in its public hearings. Mr. Johns sought judicial review of this decision, arguing that he had not been afforded an opportunity to object to the release of the transcripts.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the ASC's decision to release the examination transcripts to the Royal Commission, for use in public hearings, was made in breach of the rules of natural justice, and the extent of the Federal Court's power under section 16(1)(d) of the *Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977* (Cth) to direct a party to do any act necessary to do justice between the parties. The Court also had to consider the scope of the ASC's powers under the *Australian Securities Commission Act 1989* (Cth) regarding the release of examination material.

The High Court reasoned that the ASC's decision to release the transcripts for use in public hearings, without affording Mr. Johns an opportunity to object, constituted a breach of the rules of natural justice. The Court found that while the ASC had a broad discretion under its governing legislation, this discretion was not unfettered and was subject to the requirements of procedural fairness. The Court held that the power to direct a party to do what is necessary to do justice included the power to declare decisions invalid where natural justice had been denied.

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court and the primary judge. It declared that the ASC's decisions to release the transcripts to the Royal Commission, in circumstances that allowed for their general publication, were invalid due to the breach of natural justice. The Court otherwise dismissed the application and appeals, with liberty granted to the parties to make submissions regarding costs.