Garrett v The Chief Executive Officer of Austrade [2015] FCA 39

Garrett v The Chief Executive Officer of Austrade [2015] FCA 39

The ADJR application was incompetent because the applicant did not discharge the burden of establishing that he was a person aggrieved: he was not trustee when the proceeding commenced, his later appointment as trustee was not shown to cure the defect, he was not controller of the trust property, and his status as discretionary beneficiary did not give standing. The s 39B objection was rejected because the respondents bore the burden and did not persuade the Court that any standing defect was fatal to competency where the applicant was by then trustee and the proceeding invoked jurisdiction under s 39B rather than a provision limited to a person with a relevant interest applying.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Seeking Judicial Review and Constitutional Writs Concerning Decisions Under the Export Market Development Grants Act 1997 (cth) / Respondents' Objections to Competency of the Applications
Outcome
Respondents' objection to competency rejected in VID 584 of 2014; respondents' objection to competency upheld and application dismissed in VID 585 of 2014.
Legal Topics
['standing' 'person Aggrieved Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth)' 'objection to Competency' 'export Market Development Grants' 'insolvency Administration' 'trustee Standing' 'receiver or Controller Standing' 'discretionary Beneficiary Standing']
['administrative Law' 'practice and Procedure' 'corporations' 'trusts'] ['standing' 'person Aggrieved Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth)' 'objection to Competency' 'export Market Development Grants' 'insolvency Administration' 'trustee Standing' 'receiver or Controller Standing' 'discretionary Beneficiary Standing']

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

Proceedings Seeking Judicial Review and Constitutional Writs Concerning Decisions Under the Export Market Development Grants Act 1997 (cth) / Respondents' Objections to Competency of the Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had standing to bring the ADJR proceeding as a person aggrieved by the grant determination and refusal to accept his certificate of solvency.' 'Whether the applicant had standing because he became trustee of the trust after the proceedings commenced.' 'Whether the applicant had standing as controller or receiver under the charge.' 'Whether the applicant had standing as a discretionary beneficiary of the trust.' 'Whether the respondents established that the s 39B proceeding was incompetent for want of standing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The ADJR application was incompetent because the applicant did not discharge the burden of establishing that he was a person aggrieved: he was not trustee when the proceeding commenced, his later appointment as trustee was not shown to cure the defect, he was not controller of the trust property, and his status as discretionary beneficiary did not give standing. The s 39B objection was rejected because the respondents bore the burden and did not persuade the Court that any standing defect was fatal to competency where the applicant was by then trustee and the proceeding invoked jurisdiction under s 39B rather than a provision limited to a person with a relevant interest applying.

Court Disposition

Respondents' objection to competency rejected in VID 584 of 2014; respondents' objection to competency upheld and application dismissed in VID 585 of 2014.

Orders

  • ["In VID 584 of 2014, the respondents' objection to the competency of the application be rejected." "In VID 584 of 2014, the respondents pay the applicant's disbursements, if any, made in connection with the objection." 'In VID 584 of 2014, if a particular disbursement was made both in connection with the objection...