Australian Trade Commission v Solarex Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 658

Australian Trade Commission v Solarex Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 658

Section 13(3) of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 required the respondent to establish receipt of the claim by the Board, but it did not prescribe direct evidence as the only method of proof and did not exclude the common law evidentiary presumption of due delivery. On the Tribunal's findings that the claim was properly posted, not returned undelivered, and that the evidence of non-receipt was not accepted, it was open to infer receipt within time. The Tribunal therefore made no error of law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 1987
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the General Administrative Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Federal Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['export Market Development Grant Claim' 'statutory Time Limit for Receipt of Claim' 'presumption of Due Delivery of Posted Document' 'proof of Receipt by Administrative Decision Maker']
['administrative Law' 'evidence'] ['export Market Development Grant Claim' 'statutory Time Limit for Receipt of Claim' 'presumption of Due Delivery of Posted Document' 'proof of Receipt by Administrative Decision Maker']

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

Appeal From the General Administrative Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Federal Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal erred in law by applying the common law presumption of delivery in the ordinary course of post to determine whether the respondent's claim had been received within the meaning of s.13(3) of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974." 'Whether s.13(3) of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 required direct evidence of actual receipt by the Board or excluded proof of receipt by inference from due posting and non-return.']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 13(3) of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 required the respondent to establish receipt of the claim by the Board, but it did not prescribe direct evidence as the only method of proof and did not exclude the common law evidentiary presumption of due delivery. On the Tribunal's findings that the claim was properly posted, not returned undelivered, and that the evidence of non-receipt was not accepted, it was open to infer receipt within time. The Tribunal therefore made no error of law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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