Johnson and Commissioner of Patents

This matter concerned an application to join a party to proceedings before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicant opposed the joinder of Slyp Pty Ltd, arguing that its opposition was valid. The respondent and Slyp Pty Ltd submitted that Slyp had a direct legal and commercial interest in the decision under review, justifying its joinder.

The central legal issue before Deputy President Boyle was whether Slyp Pty Ltd was a "person whose interests are affected by the decision" for the purposes of section 30(1A) of the AAT Act, and whether it was appropriate to join Slyp as a party to the proceedings. The applicant's opposition was based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the AAT's review function.

Deputy President Boyle reasoned that the applicant's opposition misunderstood the role of the AAT in conducting an administrative merits review. Unlike a court, the AAT is not limited to reviewing the evidence before the original decision-maker for legal error. Instead, the Tribunal undertakes to "do over again" the original decision, making its own determination based on the evidence before it at the time of its decision. This principle, supported by authorities such as *Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority* and *Comptroller-General of Customs v Akai Pty Ltd*, means that the AAT considers the circumstances as they are at the time of the Tribunal's decision, not solely as they were at the time of the original decision. Consequently, Slyp Pty Ltd was found to have a sufficient interest to be joined as a party.

Deputy President Boyle directed that Slyp Pty Ltd be joined as a party to the proceedings pursuant to section 30(1A) of the AAT Act, finding the applicant's opposition to be misconceived.