Lord Howe Island First Peoples Association and Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for review by the Lord Howe Island First Peoples Association (the Applicant) concerning a minor use permit issued by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (the Respondent) to the Lord Howe Island Board. The Applicant sought to challenge the decision to issue Permit PER82744. However, the Respondent subsequently applied for the dismissal of the application, arguing that the permit had been surrendered and therefore the review was no longer necessary.

The Tribunal was required to determine several issues: whether the Respondent was prevented from making its dismissal application due to non-compliance with a Tribunal direction to lodge documents; whether the permit had been validly surrendered by written notification signed by the permit holder; and whether the proceedings were frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, or lacking in substance, which would warrant dismissal. The Tribunal also considered whether costs should be awarded.

The Tribunal reasoned that the Respondent's failure to lodge documents by the specified date did not prevent it from making the dismissal application, as the relevant provisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and associated Practice Directions allowed for extensions of time and did not equate non-compliance with contempt of court. Regarding the surrender of the permit, the Tribunal found that the letter from the Chief Executive Officer of the Lord Howe Island Board, clearly stating the Board's intention to surrender the permit and signed by her, constituted valid written notification under section 117 of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994. Consequently, the permit was no longer in force, rendering the review application moot.

As the application for review was dismissed because the subject matter had been rendered inoperative by the surrender of the permit, the Tribunal found that the proceedings were not frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, or lacking in substance in the manner that would lead to dismissal on those grounds. However, the Applicant was unsuccessful in its review. The Tribunal noted that it has no general power to award costs, and the specific provisions for refund amounts under the Administrative Appeals Regulation 2015 did not assist an unsuccessful applicant. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed, and the question of costs did not arise.