ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - judicial review - consent to institution of criminal proceedings under the Corporations Law - whether consent is required for indictable offence - whether accused has a right to be heard
CORPORATIONS - offences - expiry of time limit for instituting prosecution without ministerial consent - whether Minister must notify prior to granting consent
ANTONY GORDON OATES v THE HONOURABLE DARYL WILLIAMS (in his capacity as Attorney General of Australia) and THE SENATOR THE HONOURABLE AMANDA VANSTONE (in her capacity as the Minister for Justice…
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 Oates v Williams
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Oates v Williams [1998] FCA 775
Case
[1998] FCA 775
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal was brought by Oates, the appellant, against Williams, the respondent. The matter involved a dispute concerning the validity of a consent given under section 1316 of the Corporations Law, which allowed for the institution of prosecutions against the appellant. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the consent given on 5 January 1998 was void and sought to have the consent declared invalid. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the consent was valid and should be upheld.
The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the consent given under section 1316 of the Corporations Law was valid and could be relied upon to institute prosecutions against the appellant. The court had to consider the statutory framework and the circumstances surrounding the consent. The court also had to determine whether the consent was given in accordance with the provisions of the law and whether it was validly obtained.
The court, in its reasoning, held that the consent given on 5 January 1998 was indeed void. The court found that the consent did not comply with the requirements of section 1316 of the Corporations Law, and therefore, it could not be relied upon to institute prosecutions against the appellant. The court set aside the orders made by Moore J and allowed the appeal. The court also ordered that the respondents pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal and of the hearing before Moore J. Finally, the court declared that the consent given on 5 January 1998 under s 1316 of the Corporations Law to the institution of prosecutions against the appellant is void.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal be allowed.
2.
The orders made by Moore J be set aside.
3.. The respondents pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal and of the hearing before Moore J.
AND THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
4.
The consent given on 5 January 1998 under s 1316 of the Corporations Law to the institution of prosecutions against the Appellant is void.
Note: Settlement and entry of Orders are dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules