Bond, A. & Ors v. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal [1988] FCA 278

Bond, A. & Ors v. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal [1988] FCA 278

The current inquiry was not authorised by s.17C(1) because the Tribunal had not formed even a tentative intention to exercise any substantive power, and merely wished to conduct a fact-finding inquiry to decide whether such a proposal should later be made. It was also not authorised by s.17C(3) because the Tribunal had not invoked or exercised its discretion under that provision. The inquiry therefore lacked statutory warrant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 1988
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 for Orders of Review / Reasons for Judgment on Amended Application Challenging the Validity of an Australian Broadcasting Tribunal Inquiry
Outcome
The Court concluded that the current inquiry was authorised neither by s.17C(1) nor by s.17C(3) of the Broadcasting Act 1942, and granted an extension of time so far as required to challenge the decision to hold the inquiry.
Legal Topics
['administrative Decisions (judicial Review)' 'australian Broadcasting Tribunal Inquiries' 'statutory Construction' 'substantive Powers' 'broadcasting Licences']
['administrative Law' 'broadcasting and Television'] ['administrative Decisions (judicial Review)' 'australian Broadcasting Tribunal Inquiries' 'statutory Construction' 'substantive Powers' 'broadcasting Licences']

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 the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 for Orders of Review / Reasons for Judgment on Amended Application Challenging the Validity of an Australian Broadcasting Tribunal Inquiry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal was authorised by s.17C(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1942 to hold the current inquiry when it had not formed an intention to exercise any substantive power.' 'Whether the expression "proposes to exercise" in s.17C(1) requires at least a tentative intention to exercise a substantive power.' 'Whether the current inquiry was authorised by s.17C(3) of the Broadcasting Act 1942.' 'Whether the applicants required and should receive an extension of time to challenge the decision to hold the inquiry.']

Ratio Decidendi

The current inquiry was not authorised by s.17C(1) because the Tribunal had not formed even a tentative intention to exercise any substantive power, and merely wished to conduct a fact-finding inquiry to decide whether such a proposal should later be made. It was also not authorised by s.17C(3) because the Tribunal had not invoked or exercised its discretion under that provision. The inquiry therefore lacked statutory warrant.

Court Disposition

The Court concluded that the current inquiry was authorised neither by s.17C(1) nor by s.17C(3) of the Broadcasting Act 1942, and granted an extension of time so far as required to challenge the decision to hold the inquiry.

Orders

  • ['Appropriate orders should be made giving effect to the reasons, with counsel to be heard on the form of those orders.' 'In so far as the applicants require an extension of time for the purpose of challenging the decision to hold the inquiry, an extension of time is granted.']