The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Pharmacy Depot Hurstville

The case involved the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and Pharmacy Depot Hurstville. The Commissioner sought an order for examination of two individuals, pursuant to section 135A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), to assist in recovering proceeds of crime. Pharmacy Depot Hurstville consented to the examination, subject to certain conditions, including that the examination occur via an audio-visual link. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the court had the authority to impose conditions on the form of the examination and whether it had the power to order costs in relation to the examination. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had the power to make orders in relation to costs, and whether the court had reserved liberty to direct the parties to bring short minutes of the order to the Registrar.

The court found that it did have the authority to impose conditions on the form of the examination, including the use of an audio-visual link, as the legislation allowed for such flexibility. The court also found that it did have the power to order costs in relation to the examination, and that this power resided in the approved examiner. However, the court found that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal did not have the power to make orders in relation to costs. Finally, the court found that it had reserved liberty to direct the parties to bring short minutes of the order to the Registrar.

The court made orders for the examination to proceed via an audio-visual link, and for the costs of the examination to be paid by the Commissioner. The court also directed the parties to bring short minutes of the order to the Registrar.