C.A.R.E. Inc. v. Menzies, A. & Anor [1987] FCA 5

C.A.R.E. Inc. v. Menzies, A. & Anor [1987] FCA 5

The application failed because the Tribunal did not exceed its procedural discretion or commit an error of law in excluding generalised opinion evidence that it considered would not materially assist it, the summonses were within the wide power conferred by sub-s.200(1) and sought documents relevant to C.A.R.E.'s broad objections, the summonses were not shown to have been issued for an impermissible purpose, and the Tribunal had considered confidentiality and was entitled to conclude that the public interest in production outweighed it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 January 1987
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) for an Order of Review / Judicial Review of Interlocutory Decisions of the Australian Capital Territory Credit Tribunal During a Credit Provider's Licence Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' "credit Provider's Licence" 'tribunal Procedure' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'summons to Produce Documents' 'public Interest Immunity' 'confidentiality']
['administrative Law' 'consumer Credit Licensing'] ['judicial Review' "credit Provider's Licence" 'tribunal Procedure' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'summons to Produce Documents' 'public Interest Immunity' 'confidentiality']

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 (cth) for an Order of Review / Judicial Review of Interlocutory Decisions of the Australian Capital Territory Credit Tribunal During a Credit Provider's Licence Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal erred in law by refusing to admit testimony consisting of conclusions, generalised statements or assessments based on a financial counsellor's recollection of discussions with customers of Waltons." "Whether summonses issued under sub-s.200(1) of the Credit Ordinance 1985 (A.C.T.) could require C.A.R.E. and Welfare Rights Centre (A.C.T.) to produce documents concerning customers' credit transactions with Waltons." 'Whether the summons procedure was being used for an impermissible purpose analogous to discovery rather than for the purposes of the Tribunal inquiry.' 'Whether documents held by C.A.R.E. and Welfare Rights Centre (A.C.T.) were protected from production by public interest immunity or confidentiality.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the Tribunal did not exceed its procedural discretion or commit an error of law in excluding generalised opinion evidence that it considered would not materially assist it, the summonses were within the wide power conferred by sub-s.200(1) and sought documents relevant to C.A.R.E.'s broad objections, the summonses were not shown to have been issued for an impermissible purpose, and the Tribunal had considered confidentiality and was entitled to conclude that the public interest in production outweighed it.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the respondents of the application.']