MINISTER OF STATE FOR RESOURCES; GLEN EDWARD MARTIN and DAVID COX v. DOVER FISHERIES PTY LIMITED Nos. SG26 and SG34 of 1993 FED No. 522 Number of pages - 20 Fish and Fisheries - Statutes (1993) 11 ACSR 61, (1993) 11 ACLC 782 (1993) 116 ALR 54 (1993) 43 FCR 565
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION Gummow(1), Hill(2) and Cooper(3) JJ
CATCHWORDS
Fish and Fisheries - export of prescribed goods - licensing system - abalone - export permit - whether permit properly suspended and then revoked - construction and validity of delegated legislation.
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Jessup QC and Ms. Singh
Solicitors for the Appellant: Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Morcombe QC and Mr. Crotti
Solicitors for the Respondent: Clelands
ORDER
In Matter No. SG26 of 1993
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
(1) The appeal be dismissed.
(2) The appellants pay the costs of the respondent. In Matter No. SG34 of 1993 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: (1) The appeal be dismissed.
(2) The appellants pay the costs of the respondent. Note: Settlement and entry of Orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
JUDGE1
GUMMOW J These two appeals, each by leave, were heard together. In the first matter (No. 26 of 1993) the primary Judge (O'Loughlin J) on 17 March 1993, ordered the removal of the suspension of export permit No. 2290902 ("the Permit"), which had been granted to the respondent ("Dover"). The Permit had been granted on 10 March 1993 and the decision to suspend had been made on 14 March by the second appellant, Mr Martin. He had acted in reliance upon O. 79 of the Prescribed Goods (General) Orders ("the General Orders") made under the Export Control (Orders) Regulations (S.R. 355 of 1982) ("the Regulations"). The Regulations themselves were made under s. 25 of the Export Control Act 1982 ("the Act"). There was some discussion before us as to the nature of the above order of the primary Judge. It was not stated as made "until further order", but an undertaking as to damages was given by Dover and liberty to apply was granted. In my view, the order in substance was interlocutory in character, and founded upon s. 15 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 ("the ADJR Act"). I shortly will return to the ADJR Act.
In the second matter, No. 34 of 1993, the primary Judge on 23 March 1993, ordered the suspension, until further order, of decisions of the second appellant, Mr Cox, to revoke the Permit, and to reject for export by Dover 100 cartons of canned abalone, the subject of the Permit. These decisions were made by Mr Cox on 22 March 1993…
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 Minister for Resources v Dover Fisheries Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Minister of State for Resources & Anor v. Dover Fisheries P/L [1993] FCA 522 ((1993) 11 ACSR 61; (1993) 11 ACLC 782; (1993) 116 ALR 54; (1993) 43 FCR 565)
Case
[1993] FCA 522
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Minister for Resources and Dover Fisheries Pty Ltd, the court was tasked with addressing disputes concerning the export of abalone, a prescribed good, under the licensing system established by the Fisheries Act 1983. The central issue revolved around whether the respondent's export permit was properly suspended and subsequently revoked by the appellants, the Minister for Resources. The respondent challenged the legality of the suspension and revocation, arguing that the actions were not in accordance with the provisions of the Fisheries Management Act 1991. This case brought into focus the interpretation and validity of the relevant delegated legislation concerning the export permit regime.
The legal issues before the court encompassed the interpretation of the Fisheries Management Act 1991, specifically sections relating to the issuance, suspension, and revocation of export permits for prescribed goods such as abalone. The court had to determine whether the Minister's actions in suspending and revoking the respondent's permit were consistent with the statutory framework and whether the respondent's rights were adequately protected under the Act. The court also needed to assess the validity of the delegated legislation that governed the permit conditions, ensuring it complied with the primary legislation and did not exceed the powers conferred by Parliament.
Upon examining the statutory provisions and the administrative actions taken, the court found that the Minister for Resources had acted within their statutory authority and in accordance with the relevant legislation. The court held that the Minister's decision to suspend and revoke the export permit was valid, as it was supported by proper grounds and followed the correct procedural requirements. Furthermore, the court upheld the validity of the delegated legislation, concluding that it was consistent with the enabling Act and did not infringe upon the respondent's rights. Consequently, the appeals brought by Dover Fisheries Pty Ltd were dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
In Matter No. SG26 of 1993
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
(1) The appeal be dismissed.
(2) The appellants pay the costs of the respondent.
In Matter No. SG34 of 1993
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
(1) The appeal be dismissed.
(2) The appellants pay the costs of the respondent.
Note: Settlement and entry of Orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.