Glass v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority [2003] FCA 1105

Glass v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority [2003] FCA 1105

Interlocutory relief was refused because APRA's proposed procedure of having its delegate consider the offered enforceable undertakings and the possible s 120A disqualifications at the same time did not foreclose APRA's options, did not show an impermissible fettering of discretion, did not mean the undertakings would not be considered, and did not establish a compromise of natural justice. The applicants therefore failed to establish either a serious question to be tried or a balance of convenience warranting restraint of APRA's statutory decision-making process.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Order of Review and Writ of Prohibition Concerning Proposed Disqualification Under the Superannuation Industry (supervision) Act 1993 / Claim for Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
The claim for interlocutory relief was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['trustee Disqualification' 'enforceable Undertakings' "regulator's Statutory Functions" 'judicial Review' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'procedural Fairness']
['superannuation' 'administrative Law'] ['trustee Disqualification' 'enforceable Undertakings' "regulator's Statutory Functions" 'judicial Review' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'procedural Fairness']

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 for Order of Review and Writ of Prohibition Concerning Proposed Disqualification Under the Superannuation Industry (supervision) Act 1993 / Claim for Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether APRA was required to consider proposed enforceable undertakings under s 262A before proceeding to consider disqualification under s 120A of the SIS Act.' 'Whether APRA took into account irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account relevant considerations in relation to the proposed undertakings.' 'Whether APRA impermissibly fettered its discretion by a rule or policy of considering enforceable undertakings at the same time as disqualification.' 'Whether the applicants established a serious question to be tried and a balance of convenience warranting interlocutory relief restraining APRA from making a decision under s 120A.']

Ratio Decidendi

Interlocutory relief was refused because APRA's proposed procedure of having its delegate consider the offered enforceable undertakings and the possible s 120A disqualifications at the same time did not foreclose APRA's options, did not show an impermissible fettering of discretion, did not mean the undertakings would not be considered, and did not establish a compromise of natural justice. The applicants therefore failed to establish either a serious question to be tried or a balance of convenience warranting restraint of APRA's statutory decision-making process.

Court Disposition

The claim for interlocutory relief was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The claim for interlocutory relief is dismissed.' "The applicants are to pay the respondent's costs of the claim for interlocutory relief." 'The application is set down for directions on Thursday, 2 October at 10 am.' 'Liberty to apply.']