AA v Board of the Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 642

AA v Board of the Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 642

None of the applicants’ grounds for interlocutory injunction had sufficient prospects of success to justify restraining ACC examiners from conducting proposed examinations; even in relation to a conceded serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience favoured refusal of injunctions due to substantial public interest in proceedings, legislative protections and absence of strong likelihood of ultimate success.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review/interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Decision on Applications for Injunction
Outcome
Applications for interlocutory injunction refused
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunctions' 'judicial Review' 'australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (cth)' 'acts Interpretation Act 1901 (cth)' 'administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth)']
['administrative Law' 'criminal Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'judicial Review' 'australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (cth)' 'acts Interpretation Act 1901 (cth)' 'administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth)']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review/interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Decision on Applications for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there is a serious question to be tried justifying interlocutory injunction against ACC examinations' "Whether examiner's reasons for issuing summonses comply with statutory requirements" 'Whether extensions to Special Investigation Determination are invalid' 'Whether summonses were issued pursuant to a valid Board resolution' 'Whether summonses are oppressive or beyond power']

Ratio Decidendi

None of the applicants’ grounds for interlocutory injunction had sufficient prospects of success to justify restraining ACC examiners from conducting proposed examinations; even in relation to a conceded serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience favoured refusal of injunctions due to substantial public interest in proceedings, legislative protections and absence of strong likelihood of ultimate success.

Court Disposition

Applications for interlocutory injunction refused

Orders

  • ['The application by each applicant for an interlocutory injunction restraining the respective third respondent from proceeding with the examination of the applicant be refused.']