Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1988] FCA 431

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1988] FCA 431

The correct interpretation of 'proposes' in s. 17C(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1942 is that the Tribunal need only put forward for consideration the exercise of a substantive power, not form an intention to exercise it prior to the inquiry. The Tribunal's action in holding the inquiry was authorised under s. 17C(1) as long as there was a decision to investigate with the possibility that a substantive power may be exercised.

Parties
Appellant: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; First Respondent: Alan Bond; Second Respondent: Bond Media Limited; Third Respondent: Bond Corporation Holdings Limited; Fourth Respondent: Queensland Television Limited; Fifth Respondent: Consolidated Broadcasting System (W.A.) Pty. Limited; Sixth Respondent: Northwest Radio Pty. Limited; Seventh Respondent: Darwin Broadcasters Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 1988
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed (by majority judgment)
Legal Topics
Tribunal Inquiries, Statutory Construction, Broadcast Licence Regulation, Powers of Statutory Tribunals
Administrative Law Broadcasting and Media Law Tribunal Inquiries Statutory Construction Broadcast Licence Regulation Powers of Statutory Tribunals

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

Parties

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal

Appellant

Alan Bond

First Respondent

Bond Media Limited

Second Respondent

Bond Corporation Holdings Limited

Third Respondent

Queensland Television Limited

Fourth Respondent

Consolidated Broadcasting System (W.A.) Pty. Limited

Fifth Respondent

Northwest Radio Pty. Limited

Sixth Respondent

Darwin Broadcasters Pty. Limited

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal was authorised under s. 17C(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1942 to hold the inquiry by 'proposing' to exercise its substantive powers without forming an initial intention to do so.
  2. 2 Proper construction of 'proposes' in s. 17C(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1942.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's proposal to exercise substantive powers was sufficiently formulated.

Ratio Decidendi

The correct interpretation of 'proposes' in s. 17C(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1942 is that the Tribunal need only put forward for consideration the exercise of a substantive power, not form an intention to exercise it prior to the inquiry. The Tribunal's action in holding the inquiry was authorised under s. 17C(1) as long as there was a decision to investigate with the possibility that a substantive power may be exercised.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (by majority judgment)

Orders

  • The appeal be allowed.
  • The declaration and the order no. 3 made by the trial judge on 10 June 1988 be set aside.