Ghanem v Australian Research Council (No 2) [2015] FCA 434

Ghanem v Australian Research Council (No 2) [2015] FCA 434

The applicant's 2013 funding proposal was not void, but merely ineligible under the relevant Funding Rules; ARC CEO had discretion to process the proposal; the applicant waived and acquiesced in its submission due to the Deed of Settlement and subsequent conduct; there was no foundation for granting declaratory or other relief given lack of real or practical utility.

Parties
Applicant: Ashraf Ghanem; First Respondent: Australian Research Council; Second Respondent: Minister of Education
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Remitter From Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Eligibility Under Grant Funding Rules, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions, Waiver/acquiescence in Eligibility Criteria, Ministerial Discretion in Grant Approval, Utility of Declaratory Relief
Administrative Law Eligibility Under Grant Funding Rules Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Waiver/acquiescence in Eligibility Criteria Ministerial Discretion in Grant Approval Utility of Declaratory Relief

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashraf Ghanem

Applicant

Australian Research Council

First Respondent

Minister of Education

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Remitter From Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant's proposal for Future Fellowship was void due to applicant exceeding permitted applications under Funding Rules
  2. 2 Whether applicant waived entitlement to challenge the validity of his own application
  3. 3 Whether applicant acquiesced in making the application for Future Fellowship funding

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's 2013 funding proposal was not void, but merely ineligible under the relevant Funding Rules; ARC CEO had discretion to process the proposal; the applicant waived and acquiesced in its submission due to the Deed of Settlement and subsequent conduct; there was no foundation for granting declaratory or other relief given lack of real or practical utility.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • All claims for relief made by the applicant in his Further Amended Originating Application for Judicial Review filed on 13 October 2014 be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to this proceeding including the costs of the summary dismissal application made by Interlocutory Application filed on 4 March 2014.