Legal Research
Cases
Otter Gold Mines Ltd v McDonald

Otter Gold Mines Ltd v McDonald

Link copied

Case Copied 30 July 1997 18 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Administrative Appeals Tribunal - Documents produced to Tribunal pursuant to summons procured by party - Determination of proceeding before Tribunal - Appeal to Federal Court - While appeal pending party applies to Tribunal for leave to use documents in another proceeding - Tribunal declines to deal with application on ground that appeal pending and documents transmitted to Court - Application to Federal Court to review decision - Whether decision of administrative character - Implied undertaking of party procuring production of documents to Court not to use for another purpose - Whether applies to documents produced to Tribunal on summons - Whether Tribunal has power to release party from undertaking.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, ss3(2)(b), 7(1), 40(1A)(c), 61(1), 63(d)

Harman v Home Office [1983] 1 AC 280
Pancontinental Mining Ltd v Burns (1994) 124 ALR 471
Kimberley Mineral Holdings Ltd v McEwan [1980] 1 NSWLR 210
Riddick v Thames Board Mills [1977] QB 881
Holpitt Pty Ltd v Varimu Pty Ltd (1991) 103 ALR 684
Sweetman v Australian Thoroughbred Finance Pty Ltd (unreported, 23 July 1992)
Lake Cumbeline Pty Ltd v Effem Foods Pty Ltd (unreported, 28 August 1996)
Complete Technology Pty Ltd v Toshiba (Aust) Pty Ltd (1994) 124 ALR 493
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Plowman (1995) 183 CLR 10
Halcon International Inc v Shell Transport and Trading Co [1979] RPC 97
Tassilo Bonzel & Schneider (Europe) AG v Intervention Ltd [1991] RPC 43
Re Environmental Images Pty Ltd (1996) 23 AAR 439
Parsons v Martin (1984) 5 FCR 235
Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 612
Springfield Nominees Pty Ltd v Bridgelands Securities Ltd (1992) 110 ALR 685

OTTER GOLD MINES LIMITED v DEPUTY PRESIDENT G L McDONALD OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL, VICTORIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY and AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION and BEACONSFIELD GOLD N L and BURDEKIN RESOURCES N L
VG 160 of 1997

SUNDBERG J
MELBOURNE
30 JULY 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No VG 160 of 1997
)

GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN:OTTER GOLD MINES LIMITED
(ARBN 003 082 773)
Applicant

AND:DEPUTY PRESIDENT G L McDONALD OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL, VICTORIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY
First Respondent

and

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION
Second Respondent

and

BEACONSFIELD GOLD N L
(ACN 057 793 834)
Third Respondent

and

BURDEKIN RESOURCES N L
(ACN 059 326 519)
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:SUNDBERG J
PLACE:MELBOURNE
DATED:30 JULY 1997

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The decision constituted by the Tribunal's failure to determine the application made by letter dated 3 March 1997 be set aside.

The matter be remitted to the Tribunal to be dealt with in accordance with the reasons of the Court.

The fourth respondent pay the applicant's taxed costs of the application.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No VG 160 of 1997
)

GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN:OTTER…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Otter Gold Mines Ltd v McDonald and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1997] FCA 694
Decision Date: 30 July 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Otter Gold Mines Limited sought an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which had declined to allow the use of documents in another proceeding. The AAT had previously ordered the production of certain documents to the Tribunal for use in a proceeding between the parties. The appeal was still pending when the applicant sought to use those documents in another proceeding. The AAT declined to deal with the application on the basis that the appeal was pending and that the documents had been transmitted to the Court. The applicant then sought judicial review of the AAT’s decision. The central issue was whether the AAT’s decision was of an administrative character, and if so, whether it was subject to review. The court found that the AAT’s decision was indeed of an administrative nature as it involved the management and regulation of the use of documents produced under a summons. The court also considered whether the applicant had an implied undertaking to not use the documents for another purpose and whether the AAT had the power to release the applicant from such an undertaking. The court found that there was no such implied undertaking, and that the AAT did not have the power to release the applicant from an undertaking that related to the Court, not the Tribunal.

The court found that the AAT’s decision was not subject to review as it was an interlocutory decision that did not finally determine the applicant’s rights in relation to the documents. The court held that the AAT’s decision to decline to deal with the application was not a final decision, as the appeal was still pending and the documents had not yet been finally dealt with by the Court. The court also found that the AAT did not have the power to release the applicant from an undertaking that related to the Court, not the Tribunal. The court held that the AAT’s decision was not an administrative decision that was subject to review, and that the applicant’s remedy was to pursue the appeal before the Court. The court dismissed the application for review.

Orders