Murchison, Ian McKenzie v Keating, Paul John [1984] FCA 176

Murchison, Ian McKenzie v Keating, Paul John [1984] FCA 176

The applicant did not establish, on the evidence, a sufficiently serious question as to whether the Treasurer's consents were given for an improper or collateral purpose, or were otherwise invalid. No grounds for interlocutory relief were made out, as there was no breach of natural justice or improper exercise of power shown, and even if evidence was improperly obtained, this would not affect the validity of the consents.

Parties
Applicant: Ian McKenzie Murchison; Respondent: Paul John Keating
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 1984
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 / Interlocutory (application to Stay Committal Proceedings, Judgment by Morling J, 28 June 1984)
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Interlocutory Relief, Consent to Prosecution, Committal Proceedings, Breach of Natural Justice, Abuse of Process
Administrative Law Judicial Review Interlocutory Relief Consent to Prosecution Committal Proceedings Breach of Natural Justice Abuse of Process

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian McKenzie Murchison

Applicant

Paul John Keating

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Relief Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 / Interlocutory (application to Stay Committal Proceedings, Judgment by Morling J, 28 June 1984)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory relief should be granted to stay committal proceedings pending determination of a judicial review application under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
  2. 2 Whether the Treasurer's consents to prosecution under s.70 of the Banking Act 1959 were improperly given, involved a collateral purpose, or a breach of natural justice

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish, on the evidence, a sufficiently serious question as to whether the Treasurer's consents were given for an improper or collateral purpose, or were otherwise invalid. No grounds for interlocutory relief were made out, as there was no breach of natural justice or improper exercise of power shown, and even if evidence was improperly obtained, this would not affect the validity of the consents.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • Applicant to pay respondent's costs.