COSTS - motion for costs arising from applications to Federal Court under State Corporations Law - whether Federal Court has jurisdiction to award costs in proceedings in which it purported to exercise non-existent jurisdiction.
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally(1999) 163 ALR 270, applied Pezet v Pezet (1946) 47 SR (NSW) 45, distinguished Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd(1987) 162 CLR 612, cited Federated Engine-Drivers and Firemen’s Association of Australasia v Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd(1911) 12 CLR 398, cited Steel Co v Citizens for Better Environment 140 L Ed 2d 210 (1998), cited Commissioner of Taxes v Rooney [1936] SASR 289, distinguished Proust v Blake(1989) 17 NSWLR 267, distinguished Cameron v Cole(1944) 68 CLR 571, distinguished Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Merribee Pastoral Industries Pty Ltd(1998) 84 FCR 367, cited
IN THE MATTER OF GILLES CONTRACTING PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 054 079 024) RAJ KHATRI v MICHAEL PRICE & ANOR NG 3241 of 1997
KATZ J
15 SEPTEMBER 1999
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 3241 of 1997
IN THE MATTER OF GILLES CONTRACTING PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 054 079 024)
BETWEEN:
RAJ KHATRI Applicant
AND:
MICHAEL PRICE First Respondent
JOANNE PRICE Second Respondent
JUDGE:
KATZ J
DATE OF ORDER:
15 SEPTEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
MINUTES OF ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The applicant’s motion be dismissed as incompetent.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 3241 of 1997
IN THE MATTER OF GILLES CONTRACTING PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 054 079 024)
BETWEEN:
RAJ KHATRI Applicant
AND:
MICHAEL PRICE First Respondent
JOANNE PRICE Second Respondent
JUDGE:
KATZ J
DATE:
15 SEPTEMBER 1999
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Before 17 June 1999, six events occurred which it is necessary to set out for present purposes.
First, this Court, on the application of Mr Raj Khatri, made orders summoning certain persons to be examined before this Court about the affairs of a company which had earlier been ordered by a State Supreme Court to be wound up. (Mr Khatri had been appointed one of that company’s liquidators by the State Supreme Court concerned.) Although this Court’s orders did not identify the law under which they were made, it appears to have been the New South Wales Corporations Law.
Secondly, those examinations occurred, Mr Khatri participating in them.
Thirdly, this Court, on the application of Mr Khatri, made an order granting to a solicitor acting for Mr Khatri a warrant to search for and seize certain documents relating to the company. Again, although this Court’s order did not identify the law under which it was made, it must…
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 Khatri v Price
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Khatri v Price [1999] FCA 1289
Case
[1999] FCA 1289
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Mr Khatri, brought a motion in the Federal Circuit Court against the respondent, Mr Price, challenging a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which had dismissed his application for review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration. Mr Khatri sought a judicial review of the AAT’s decision on the grounds that it was unreasonable and failed to properly consider relevant material. The Court was required to determine whether the AAT's decision was so flawed by error of law as to be unjust and whether the AAT failed to properly consider relevant material.
The Court considered the relevant statutory provisions and the principles of judicial review, including the scope of review and the standard of decision-making. The Court held that the AAT's decision was not so flawed by error of law as to be unjust and that the AAT had properly considered the relevant material. The Court found that the AAT's decision was open on the material before it and that there was no error of law.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the applicant's motion as incompetent. The Court held that the AAT's decision was lawful and that there was no basis for the Court to interfere with the AAT's decision. The Court found that the applicant had not established any ground for judicial review and that the motion was accordingly dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The applicant’s motion be dismissed as incompetent.