Wayne Ellis Creaser v Savannah Associates Limited

The Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory heard an appeal concerning the refusal of 11 permits for the import, keeping, and sale of fireworks. The appellant, Wayne Ellis Creaser, as Chief Inspector of Dangerous Goods, had refused these permits to the respondents: Savannah Associates Limited, Wylkian Pty Limited, Australasian Spectaculars Pty Limited, and Harold Scott Upton. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory had previously set aside these refusal decisions.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Chief Inspector erred in refusing the permits to Savannah Associates Limited on the grounds that it was not a "fit and proper person" to hold a licence, and whether the applications by Wylkian Pty Limited, Australasian Spectaculars Pty Limited, and Harold Scott Upton were invalid because they were not in the proper form or accompanied by the correct fee. The court was required to determine the correct approach to assessing whether a foreign corporation is a "fit and proper person" for the purposes of the Dangerous Goods Act 1975 and whether the Chief Inspector had sufficient information to make that determination.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the "fit and proper person" test, as applied to a corporate applicant, requires an examination of the conduct, character, or reputation of the persons by whom the company acts or who are relevantly associated with it, particularly those exercising effective control. In the case of Savannah Associates Limited, a foreign corporation with a corporate director and a local agent, the Chief Inspector had sought information regarding the directors and the company's experience in handling dangerous goods. When this information was not provided, and given that the local agent's liability under the Corporations Act 2001 did not extend to breaches of the Dangerous Goods Act, the Chief Inspector was justified in not being satisfied that the applicant was a fit and proper person. The court found that the Chief Justice had erred in concluding that the Chief Inspector should have accepted the local agent's qualifications as sufficient, as the statutory obligation was to assess the applicant corporation itself.

The appeal was upheld. The orders of the Chief Justice setting aside the Chief Inspector's decisions were set aside, and the original decisions to refuse the permits were reinstated. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal and the costs incurred by the appellant in the Supreme Court.