Re Carmody; Ex parte Glennan

This matter concerned an application for an order nisi for prohibition and mandamus brought by the applicant, Glennan, against the respondents, Carmody and others. The dispute arose from proceedings involving a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and a subsequent appeal to the Federal Court concerning income tax matters. The applicant sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the AAT in relation to the divisibility of a "matter" and the ability to restrict appeals to points of law.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act (AAT Act) and the Federal Court Act permitted the restriction of an appeal from the AAT to the Federal Court to a point of law, and whether the Federal Court's jurisdiction could be excluded by other legislative provisions. Additionally, the Court considered whether the Commissioner of Taxation was bound by a Public Tax Ruling where a contradictory order of the Federal Court existed, and whether mandamus was available in such circumstances. The Court also had to determine the test to be applied when considering applications for constitutional writs, specifically whether the applicant had demonstrated a reasonably arguable case.

Kirby J found that there was no reasonably arguable construction of the AAT Act or the Federal Court Act that would support the applicant's argument that section 44 of the AAT Act constituted an entire code for the hearing of proceedings from the Tribunal by the Full Court of the Federal Court. His Honour concluded that this argument was not reasonably open. The applicant's first, second, and fourth grounds for seeking an order nisi were rejected as not reasonably arguable. The third ground was also rejected, not on its merits, but because it was considered premature, as the same issues would arise in the applicant's application for special leave to appeal.

Consequently, the application for an order nisi was refused. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs, and counsel's appearance in chambers was certified.