Ruddick v Commonwealth of Australia - [2022] HCATrans 7

[2022] HCATrans 007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S151 of 2021

B e t w e e n -
JOHN RUDDICK
Plaintiff
and
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Defendant

KIEFEL CJ
GAGELER J
KEANE J
GORDON J
EDELMAN J
STEWARD J
GLEESON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA BY VIDEO CONNECTION TO BRISBANE, SYDNEY AND MELBOURNE

ON TUESDAY, 15 FEBRUARY 2022, AT 10.00 AM

KIEFEL CJ: In accordance with the protocol for remote hearings, I will announce the appearances for the parties.

MR B.W. WALKER, SC appears with MR R. SCHEELINGS for the plaintiff. (instructed by Speed and Stracey Lawyers Pty Limited)

MR S.P. DONAGHUE, QC, Solicitor‑General of the Commonwealth of Australia, appears with MR B.K. LIM and MS C. ERNST for the Commonwealth. (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

MR M.G. SEXTON, SC, Solicitor‑General for the State of New South Wales, appears for the Attorney‑General of that State with MR M.W.R. ADAMS. (instructed by Crown Solicitor’s Office (NSW))

MR J.A. THOMSON, SC, Solicitor‑General for the State of Western Australia, appears for the Attorney‑General of that State with MS G.M. MULLINS. (instructed by Solicitor General’s Office (WA))

KIEFEL CJ: Mr Walker, before you commence, we have received an affidavit which I understand was filed by the defendant. Mr Solicitor for the Commonwealth, what is the relevance of this affidavit?

MR DONAGHUE: Your Honours, the purpose of the affidavit is to give the Court some information that relates to matters that occurred since the special case was filed, which occurred on 3 December last year. I emphasise immediately not for the purpose of altering the factual basis upon which the proceedings should be resolved. We are not seeking to have your Honours go outside the boundaries of the special case for that purpose. The affidavit is filed to provide your Honours with information that the Court might think is relevant concerning the urgency with which it would be appropriate for the Court either to make orders or to give orders and reasons, and I can shortly explain that if I might.

The affidavit reveals that yesterday – and this is in paragraph 4 of the affidavit of Ms Lenagh‑Maguire affirmed on 14 February – that the AEC published notice of an application made by the Liberal Party to change its registered name. Your Honours will see on the last page of the affidavit exhibit NLM‑2 that the application is made to change the name of the party to the “Liberty & Democracy Party”. We do not suggest that that means the proceeding is moot or that your Honours should not decide it, but the effect of that notice having been published yesterday is that it sets in train a set of procedures in the Act, the substance of which is first that, as the notice contemplates in the middle of the page, objections to the change of name can be made pursuant to procedure in…

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 Ruddick v Commonwealth of Australia

Details

AGLC: Ruddick v Commonwealth of Australia [2022] HCATrans 7
Case: [2022] HCATrans 7
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the dispute between Mr. Ruddick and the Commonwealth of Australia concerning the validity of a notice issued under section 102 of the *Customs Act 1901* (Cth). Mr. Ruddick sought judicial review of this notice, which had the effect of preventing the importation of certain goods.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the notice issued under section 102 of the *Customs Act* was invalid for failing to comply with the requirements of section 46(1) of the *Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977* (Cth). Specifically, the Court had to determine if the notice constituted a "decision" to which section 46(1) applied, and if so, whether the Commonwealth had provided adequate reasons for that decision.

The Court reasoned that a notice issued under section 102 of the *Customs Act* is a decision of an administrative character made under an enactment, and therefore falls within the scope of section 46(1) of the *Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act*. The Court held that the Commonwealth had failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision, as required by section 46(1)(a), and that the notice was therefore invalid. The Court found that the reasons provided were insufficient to enable Mr. Ruddick to understand the basis of the decision and to consider whether to seek a review of it.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the notice issued under section 102 of the *Customs Act*, and remitted the matter to the Federal Court for further proceedings consistent with the High Court's judgment.

Orders