Zhang v Commissioner, Australian Federal Police [2009] FCA 1170

Zhang v Commissioner, Australian Federal Police [2009] FCA 1170

There is a serious question to be tried whether the warrants as executed exceeded the authority conferred by their terms and relevant statutes, justifying interlocutory relief restraining reliance on the seized documents/materials. Extension of time is granted due to the merits and minimal prejudice to respondents.

Parties
First Applicant: Li Zhang; Second Applicant: Micland Holding Pty Ltd (ABN 58 098 802 665); Third Applicant: Peter Chang; Fourth Applicant: Seagate Consultancy Pty Ltd (ABN 66 111 556 917); First Respondent: Commissioner, Australian Federal Police; Second Respondent: Commissioner of Taxation; Third Respondent: Joanne Piggott; Fourth Respondent: Luke Needham; Fifth Respondent: Timothy Underhill; Sixth Respondent: Keir Bielecke; Seventh Respondent: Stuart Lokhee; Eighth Respondent: Alan Crowe; Ninth Respondent: Paul J Anderson; Tenth Respondent: David Kell; Eleventh Respondent: Ross Phillips; Twelfth Respondent: Matthew Wilson; Thirteenth Respondent: Stuart Coulson; Fourteenth Respondent: Chris Andrews; Fifteenth Respondent: Neil Stockbridge; Sixteenth Respondent: Gerard Newton; Seventeenth Respondent: Peter Ryan; Eighteenth Respondent: Nesa Gnanaratnam; Nineteenth Respondent: Linh Truong; Twentieth Respondent: Elizabeth Calabro; Twenty First Respondent: Ken Pirif; Twenty Second Respondent: Paul Arias; Twenty Third Respondent: John Heydon; Twenty Fourth Respondent: Robert Cooper; Twenty Fifth Respondent: Philip Corke; Twenty Sixth Respondent: David Dodd; Twenty Seventh Respondent: Fouady Sakar; Twenty Eighth Respondent: Steve Corcoran; Twenty Ninth Respondent: Michael Boyle; Thirtieth Respondent: Stuart Sutherland; Thirty First Respondent: Ronald Woodrow
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review/interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Hearing and Orders on Extension of Time and Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Extension of time and interlocutory relief granted; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Issuing/execution of Search Warrants, Extension of Time for Judicial Review Applications, Interlocutory Injunctive Relief, Statutory Restraints on Search and Seizure, Legal Professional Privilege Claims in Search/seizure Context
Administrative Law Criminal Law Search Warrants Judicial Review of Issuing/execution of Search Warrants Extension of Time for Judicial Review Applications Interlocutory Injunctive Relief Statutory Restraints on Search and Seizure Legal Professional Privilege Claims in Search/seizure Context

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Li Zhang

First Applicant

Micland Holding Pty Ltd (ABN 58 098 802 665)

Second Applicant

Peter Chang

Third Applicant

Seagate Consultancy Pty Ltd (ABN 66 111 556 917)

Fourth Applicant

Commissioner, Australian Federal Police

First Respondent

Commissioner of Taxation

Second Respondent

Joanne Piggott

Third Respondent

Luke Needham

Fourth Respondent

Timothy Underhill

Fifth Respondent

Keir Bielecke

Sixth Respondent

Stuart Lokhee

Seventh Respondent

Alan Crowe

Eighth Respondent

Paul J Anderson

Ninth Respondent

David Kell

Tenth Respondent

Ross Phillips

Eleventh Respondent

Matthew Wilson

Twelfth Respondent

Stuart Coulson

Thirteenth Respondent

Chris Andrews

Fourteenth Respondent

Neil Stockbridge

Fifteenth Respondent

Gerard Newton

Sixteenth Respondent

Peter Ryan

Seventeenth Respondent

Nesa Gnanaratnam

Eighteenth Respondent

Linh Truong

Nineteenth Respondent

Elizabeth Calabro

Twentieth Respondent

Ken Pirif

Twenty First Respondent

Paul Arias

Twenty Second Respondent

John Heydon

Twenty Third Respondent

Robert Cooper

Twenty Fourth Respondent

Philip Corke

Twenty Fifth Respondent

David Dodd

Twenty Sixth Respondent

Fouady Sakar

Twenty Seventh Respondent

Steve Corcoran

Twenty Eighth Respondent

Michael Boyle

Twenty Ninth Respondent

Stuart Sutherland

Thirtieth Respondent

Ronald Woodrow

Thirty First Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review/interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Hearing and Orders on Extension of Time and Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether warrants issued under s 3E of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) were valid on their face
  2. 2 Whether the manner of execution of those warrants exceeded statutory or warrant limitations
  3. 3 Whether time to seek judicial review should be extended

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious question to be tried whether the warrants as executed exceeded the authority conferred by their terms and relevant statutes, justifying interlocutory relief restraining reliance on the seized documents/materials. Extension of time is granted due to the merits and minimal prejudice to respondents.

Court Disposition

Extension of time and interlocutory relief granted; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Time within which the Applicants may file an ADJR application extended to 7 September 2009.
  • First and Second Respondents prohibited, until further order, from acting in reliance on, authorising actions in reliance on, or inspecting materials obtained pursuant to, the First to Sixth Warrants, subject to customary undertakings as to damages.