Industry Research and Development Board v IMT Ltd [2001] FCA 85

Industry Research and Development Board v IMT Ltd [2001] FCA 85

Because the respondent conceded that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to make express findings on whether the activities involved innovation or technical risk, the appeal should be allowed and the Tribunal's decision set aside. There was no sufficient reason to determine the non-conceded grounds before remittal. The matter should be remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal because the original Tribunal had necessarily resolved profound credibility conflicts between Mr Fisher and Mr Harman in reaching its decision, making the ordinary practice of remittal to a differently constituted tribunal appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal on Questions of Law From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Respondent's Motion Seeking Remittal After Conceded Error of Law
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision set aside; matter remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as differently constituted; hearing dates vacated; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'conceded Appeal' 'remittal to Differently Constituted Tribunal' 'adequacy of Reasons and Findings' 'research and Development Activities' 'core Technology']
['administrative Law' 'appellate Procedure' 'taxation' 'research and Development Regulation'] ['appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'conceded Appeal' 'remittal to Differently Constituted Tribunal' 'adequacy of Reasons and Findings' 'research and Development Activities' 'core Technology']

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 on Questions of Law From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Respondent's Motion Seeking Remittal After Conceded Error of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should determine non-conceded grounds of appeal before remitting the matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.' 'Whether the matter should be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as originally constituted or differently constituted.' "Whether the Tribunal's conceded failure to make findings on innovation or technical risk required the appeal to be allowed."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondent conceded that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to make express findings on whether the activities involved innovation or technical risk, the appeal should be allowed and the Tribunal's decision set aside. There was no sufficient reason to determine the non-conceded grounds before remittal. The matter should be remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal because the original Tribunal had necessarily resolved profound credibility conflicts between Mr Fisher and Mr Harman in reaching its decision, making the ordinary practice of remittal to a differently constituted tribunal appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision set aside; matter remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as differently constituted; hearing dates vacated; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 20 January 2000 be set aside.' 'The matter be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as differently constituted to be determined according to law.' 'The hearing dates for the appeal on 13/14 March 2001 be vacated.' 'There...