Evans, Allen John v. Friemann, Copley Howard & Ors [1981] FCA 94

Evans, Allen John v. Friemann, Copley Howard & Ors [1981] FCA 94

The Board's decision to fail the applicant in two subjects is a decision of an administrative character made under an enactment (the Patent Attorney Regulations under the Patents Act 1952) and is therefore reviewable under section 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The challenge to competency fails on this ground.

Parties
Applicant: Allen John Evans; Respondents: Copley Howard Friemann, Trevor Noel Beadle, Cyril Montague Bentley, David Bertram Fitzpatrick, Darryl Urnett Mischlewski, Peter Norman Nicholls, Ronald Franklin Pickering, Reginald Charles Wray (members for the time being of the Board of Examiners of Patent Attorneys)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 1981
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Ruling on Notice of Objection to Competency at Directions Stage
Outcome
Objection to competency on ground 1(a) overruled; objection to ground 1(b) stood over; costs awarded to applicant; directions and notice of motion stood over.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Administrative Decisions, Patent Attorney Examinations, Competency of Application, Definition of Decision Under Enactment
Administrative Law Judicial Review Administrative Decisions Patent Attorney Examinations Competency of Application Definition of Decision Under Enactment

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allen John Evans

Applicant

Copley Howard Friemann, Trevor Noel Beadle, Cyril Montague Bentley, David Bertram Fitzpatrick, Darryl Urnett Mischlewski, Peter Norman Nicholls, Ronald Franklin Pickering, Reginald Charles Wray (members for the time being of the Board of Examiners of Patent Attorneys)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Ruling on Notice of Objection to Competency at Directions Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision of the Board of Examiners to fail the applicant in two subjects is a 'decision of an administrative character made under an enactment' within the meaning of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
  2. 2 Whether refusing the applicant access to his examination answers is a reviewable decision under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Board's decision to fail the applicant in two subjects is a decision of an administrative character made under an enactment (the Patent Attorney Regulations under the Patents Act 1952) and is therefore reviewable under section 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The challenge to competency fails on this ground.

Court Disposition

Objection to competency on ground 1(a) overruled; objection to ground 1(b) stood over; costs awarded to applicant; directions and notice of motion stood over.

Orders

  • The objection to competency in relation to ground 1(a) of the application is overruled.
  • The objection in relation to ground 1(b) is stood over until the hearing of the principal application or further order.