Imaging Applications Pty Ltd v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [1999] FCA 890

Imaging Applications Pty Ltd v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [1999] FCA 890

The application was bound to fail because the letter of 14 April 1999 was a purported decision made by a person without the necessary delegation from ASIC and therefore without jurisdiction or power; ASIC accepted it as a nullity and undertook to consider the applicants' s 55A application afresh, leaving no reviewable decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). It was therefore appropriate to extend time for the notice of objection to competency and dismiss the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for an Order of Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Notice of Objection to Competency and Dismissal of Application
Outcome
Application dismissed; respondent's time to file notice of objection to competency extended; respondent ordered to pay applicants' costs incurred up to and including 18 June 1999, otherwise no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['reviewable Decision' 'delegation of Power' 'asic Power Under S 55 a of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (cth)' 'objection to Competency' 'costs']
['administrative Law' 'judicial Review' 'insurance Law' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['reviewable Decision' 'delegation of Power' 'asic Power Under S 55 a of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (cth)' 'objection to Competency' 'costs']

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 an Order of Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Notice of Objection to Competency and Dismissal of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent had made a decision reviewable by the Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).' 'Whether time should be extended for the respondent to file a notice of objection to competency.' 'Whether the application for an order of review should be dismissed where the purported decision was made without necessary delegation and power.' 'What costs order should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was bound to fail because the letter of 14 April 1999 was a purported decision made by a person without the necessary delegation from ASIC and therefore without jurisdiction or power; ASIC accepted it as a nullity and undertook to consider the applicants' s 55A application afresh, leaving no reviewable decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). It was therefore appropriate to extend time for the notice of objection to competency and dismiss the application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; respondent's time to file notice of objection to competency extended; respondent ordered to pay applicants' costs incurred up to and including 18 June 1999, otherwise no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The time within which the respondent may file a notice of objection to competency be extended up to and including 21 June 1999.' 'The application for an order of review filed on 12 May 1999 be dismissed.' "The respondent pay the applicants' costs in relation to the application incurred up to and including 18 June...