Australian Trade Commission v Solarex Pty Limited [1987] FCA 701

Australian Trade Commission v Solarex Pty Limited [1987] FCA 701

The Tribunal did not err in law in applying the common law presumption of delivery in the ordinary course of post to infer receipt of the claim by the Board within the statutory time, as s.13(3) of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 does not expressly or by necessary implication exclude such a presumption.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Trade Commission; Respondent: Solarex Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 1987
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the General Administrative Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Export Market Development Grant, Statutory Interpretation, Presumption of Due Delivery, Proof of Receipt of Documents
Administrative Law Evidence Export Market Development Grant Statutory Interpretation Presumption of Due Delivery Proof of Receipt of Documents

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

Parties

Australian Trade Commission

Applicant

Solarex Pty Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the General Administrative Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presumption of due delivery of a posted document applies in determining receipt under the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 s.13(3)
  2. 2 Whether statutory requirements regarding 'receipt' require direct evidence of receipt by the Board

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in law in applying the common law presumption of delivery in the ordinary course of post to infer receipt of the claim by the Board within the statutory time, as s.13(3) of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 does not expressly or by necessary implication exclude such a presumption.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay to the respondent its costs of the appeal.