Karina Fisheries Pty Ltd v Mackie, D.W - [1986] FCA 58

Re: KARINA FISHERIES PTY LTD; DINKO LUKIN and CAPTAIN SUZUKI
And: DON WAYNE MACKIE
No. G8 of 1986
Administrative Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Forster J.

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - judicial review - decision of fisheries officer requiring tuna processing vessel to return to port to facilitate investigation of alleged discrepancies between reports and details of an alleged unreported trans-shipment of tuna - application for continuation of order suspending operation of decision - whether applicants could make out arguable case - whether making of decision breached rules of natural justice - whether decision unreasonable - whether alleged discrepancies "significant".

Fisheries Act, s. 10(1)(e)

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, s. 5, 15(1)(a)

Perkins v. Cuthill (1981) 34 A.L.R. 669

HEARING

ADELAIDE

#DATE 21:2:1986

ORDER

Application for suspension of operation of decision is dismissed.

The order granted on 15 February 1986 suspending operation of decision is rescinded.

The applicants pay to the respondent its costs of these proceedings.

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

JUDGE1

The applicants seek a review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act of a decision of the respondent dated 14 February 1986. The respondent (Mackie) is a fisheries officer and his decision required the master of the Daito Maru ("the ship") to take the ship to Port Lincoln and cause it to remain there until its departure was permitted. The decision was evidenced by a written notice addressed to the ship's master signed by Mackie, a copy of which was exhibited to his affidavit. The notice purports on the face of it to be given pursuant to s. 10(1)(e) of the Fisheries Act 1952 and recites that Mackie "being an officer within the terms of the said Act" requires the master to take the ship to Port Lincoln. The notice recites that Mackie has "reason to believe" that the ship "has been used in contravention of the said Act". Section 10(1)(e) of the Fisheries Act is as follows -

"10(1) An officer may -

(e) require the master of a boat which the officer has reason to believe has been used, is being used or is intended to be used in contravention of this Act to

bring the boat to a place in Australia or a Territory specified by the officer and to remain in control of the boat at that place until an officer permits him to depart from that place;".

It is not disputed that Mackie's decision to issue the notice was a decision of an administrative character made under an enactment viz. the Fisheries Act 1952 and is thus a decision to which the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act applies. It is similarly undisputed that at least one of the applicants is a person aggrieved by the decision and may therefore apply under s. 5 of the Act for a review of the decision.
The Daito Maru is a fish processing vessel to…

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.

Continue reading Karina Fisheries Pty Ltd v Mackie, D.W

Details

AGLC: Karina Fisheries Pty Ltd & Ors v Mackie, D.W. [1986] FCA 58
Case: [1986] FCA 58
Decision Date: 21 FEBRUARY 1986

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Karina Fisheries Pty Ltd v Mackie, D.W involved a dispute between a fisheries company and a fisheries officer. The company sought to challenge a decision by the officer that required their tuna processing vessel to return to port in order to facilitate an investigation into alleged discrepancies between various reports and details of an alleged unreported trans-shipment of tuna. The applicants sought a continuation of an order suspending the operation of the decision pending the outcome of their application for judicial review. The central legal issues in the case were whether the applicants could make out an arguable case, whether the making of the decision breached rules of natural justice, whether the decision was unreasonable, and whether the alleged discrepancies were "significant".

The court held that the applicants could not make out an arguable case that the decision was unlawful, as they had failed to establish that the alleged discrepancies were significant. The court also found that the making of the decision did not breach rules of natural justice, as the applicants had not been deprived of an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the decision was not unreasonable, as it was based on a reasonable interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions. The court also found that the alleged discrepancies were not significant, as they did not relate to the quantity of tuna caught or the amount of tax payable.

As a result of these findings, the court dismissed the applicants' application for a continuation of the order suspending the operation of the decision. The court also rescinded the order that had been granted on 15 February 1986, and ordered that the applicants pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings. The settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for suspension of operation of decision is dismissed.

The order granted on 15 February 1986 suspending operation of decision is rescinded.

The applicants pay to the respondent its costs of these proceedings.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is 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.