AB v National Crime Authority [1996] FCA 122

AB v National Crime Authority [1996] FCA 122

The applicant had not placed material before the Court showing a need to go beyond the terms of the relevant references to establish their validity or the nature of the NCA's line of enquiry. The primary facts were not in dispute, the references could be placed before the Court, and the applicant had been informed of the line of enquiry. The discovery sought was an attempt to ransack the NCA's documents in the hope of making a case and was mere fishing, so discovery was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 1996
Procedural Posture
Application Under Subsection 32(2) of the National Crime Authority Act 1984 (cth) for an Order of Review / Applicant's Motion for Limited Discovery
Outcome
Applicant's motion refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'national Crime Authority Summons' 'special Investigation' 'construction and Validity of References' 'fishing Expedition']
['administrative Law' 'judicial Review' 'practice and Procedure'] ['discovery' 'national Crime Authority Summons' 'special Investigation' 'construction and Validity of References' 'fishing Expedition']

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

Application Under Subsection 32(2) of the National Crime Authority Act 1984 (cth) for an Order of Review / Applicant's Motion for Limited Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether limited discovery should be ordered in the applicant's application for review of the National Crime Authority's decision requiring the applicant to answer a question." "Whether the applicant had shown a sufficient basis to obtain discovery of documents relating to the making and scope of the PQR Ltd/XYZ Ltd references and the NCA's investigation of the STU Ltd investment."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant had not placed material before the Court showing a need to go beyond the terms of the relevant references to establish their validity or the nature of the NCA's line of enquiry. The primary facts were not in dispute, the references could be placed before the Court, and the applicant had been informed of the line of enquiry. The discovery sought was an attempt to ransack the NCA's documents in the hope of making a case and was mere fishing, so discovery was refused.

Court Disposition

Applicant's motion refused with costs.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's motion, notice of which is dated 14 November 1995, be refused with costs."]