Precision Data Holdings Ltd & Ors v Wills - [1991] HCATrans 270

',:-~,
•

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Melbourne No M37 of 1991
B e t w e e n -
PRECISION DATA HOLDINGS LTD,
DABBY PTY LTD, TITAN HILLS
AUSTRALIA LTD, GODFREY CULLEN,
MAXWELL LATIMER and GARRY GRACO
Plaintiffs

and
DEAN WILLS, ROSS ADLER, PETER
JOOSTE {in their capacity as
Members of the Corporations and
Securities Panel), THE
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, THE
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES
COMMISSION and THE STATE OF
VICTORIA
Defendants

Case Stated pursuant to
section 18 of the Judiciary
Act 1903

MASON CJ
BRENNAN J

DEANE J
DAWSON J

TOOHEY J

GAUDRON-.J

McHUGH.J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 25 SEPTEMBER 1991, AT 10.55 AM

Precision

25/9/91

MR D.F. JACKSON, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with
my learned friend, MR P. HANKS, for the plaintiffs.
(instructed by Ebsworth & Ebsworth)

MR G. GRIFFITH, QC, Solicitor-General for the Commonwealth:
If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned
friends, MS S.C. KENNY and MR S.J. GAGELER, for the
Commonwealth of Australia, the fourth defendant.
(instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)

MR M.J. COLBRAN: If the Court pleases, I appear for the
fifth defendant, the Australian Securities
Commission. (instructed by Regional General Counsel
(Vic) for the Australian Securities Commission)

MR H.C. BERKELEY, QC, Solicitor General for the State of

Victoria: I appear with my learned friend,
MR C.M. SCERRI, for the State of Victoria.
(instructed by the Crown Solicitor for Victoria)

MR K.H. PARKER, QC, Solicitor-General for the State of
Western Australia: If it please the Court, I
appear with my learned friend, MSC.A. WHEELER, for
the State of Western Australiu, intervening in
support of the validity of the legislation.
(instructed by the Crown Solicitor for the State of
Western Australia)

MASON CJ: Yes, I have taken that all the Solicitors are
appearing to support the validity of the
legislation.

MR PARKER: I have not seen any other colour raised yet,
Your Honour.

MR J.J. DOYLE, QC, Solicitor-General for the State of South
Australia: If the Court pleases, I appear with
MR M.D. WALTER, for the States of South Australia
and Tasmania, to intervene in support of the
defendants and in support of the validity of the
legislation. (instructed by the Crown Solicitors

for the States of South Australia and Tasmania)

MR G.L. DAVIES, QC, Solicitor-General for the State of
Queensland: May it please the Court, I appear with
my learned friend, MS R.G. ATKINSON, for the State
of Queensland, also to support the legislation.
(instructed by the Crown Solicitor for the State of
Queensland)

MASON CJ: Yes, Mr Jackson.

MR JACKSON:

Your Honours have material filed that sets out the submissions made on behalf of the parties and
as appears from that material the case concerns the
validity of the conferral on the Corporations and
Securities Panel of the powers referred to in

Precision 2 25/9/91
sections 733 and 734 of the Corporations Law of
Victoria and of the other States.

Your Honours,…

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 Precision Data Holdings Ltd & Ors v Wills 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: [1991] HCATrans 270
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the plaintiffs, Precision Data Holdings Ltd and others, brought a case against the Corporations and Securities Panel and various government entities, including the Commonwealth of Australia and the Australian Securities Commission. The dispute concerned the validity of the powers conferred upon the Corporations and Securities Panel by sections 733 and 734 of the Corporations Law of Victoria and other states.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the conferral of these specific powers on the Corporations and Securities Panel was constitutionally valid. The plaintiffs sought to challenge the legislative authority that granted these functions to the Panel.

The Court was required to examine the Australian Securities Commission Act 1989 and subsequent amendments, particularly the Corporations Legislation Amendment Act 1990, to understand the nature and scope of the Panel's functions. The arguments presented by the parties, including the Solicitor-General for the Commonwealth and Solicitors-General for several states intervening in support of the legislation, focused on the validity of the legislative provisions establishing and empowering the Panel.

Orders