JJ v Board of the Australian Crime Commission [2011] FCAFC 73

JJ v Board of the Australian Crime Commission [2011] FCAFC 73

The appeal failed because the proposed resolutions were referred to all Board members and the express requirements of s 7J were satisfied when at least 9 Board members, including at least 2 eligible Commonwealth Board members, indicated support by permitted modes of communication. Section 7J did not require direct personal communication of each member's support to the Chair and did not imply a requirement that every member be given a further reasonable opportunity to vote before adoption. The 2009 Determination was therefore valid. The Summons was also valid because the appellant did not establish that the Examiner lacked the required satisfaction under s 28(1A); the Examiner's reasons...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Appeal Concerning Validity of an Australian Crime Commission Special Investigation Determination and Summons / Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['validity of Resolutions Outside Board Meetings Under S 7 J of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (cth)' 'validity of Special Investigation Determination' 'validity of Summons Issued Under S 28 of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (cth)' "adequacy of Examiner's Recorded Reasons" 'effect of Non Compliance With Statutory Procedural Requirements']
['administrative Law' 'statutory Interpretation' 'australian Crime Commission Powers' 'judicial Review'] ['validity of Resolutions Outside Board Meetings Under S 7 J of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (cth)' 'validity of Special Investigation Determination' 'validity of Summons Issued Under S 28 of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (cth)' "adequacy of Examiner's Recorded Reasons" 'effect of Non Compliance With Statutory Procedural Requirements']

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

Administrative Law Appeal Concerning Validity of an Australian Crime Commission Special Investigation Determination and Summons / Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Board validly adopted resolutions outside a meeting under s 7J of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) authorising the 2009 Determination extending the special investigation.' 'Whether s 7J required Board members to communicate their support directly to the Chair rather than through the CEO, a Commission employee or established communication systems.' 'Whether s 7J impliedly required every Board member to have a reasonable opportunity to vote before the resolutions could be treated as adopted.' 'Whether the Examiner was satisfied under s 28(1A) that it was reasonable in all the circumstances to issue the Summons.' 'Whether the Examiner recorded reasons sufficient to satisfy s 28(1A), and whether any inadequacy in the record affected the validity of the Summons.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the proposed resolutions were referred to all Board members and the express requirements of s 7J were satisfied when at least 9 Board members, including at least 2 eligible Commonwealth Board members, indicated support by permitted modes of communication. Section 7J did not require direct personal communication of each member's support to the Chair and did not imply a requirement that every member be given a further reasonable opportunity to vote before adoption. The 2009 Determination was therefore valid. The Summons was also valid because the appellant did not establish that the Examiner lacked the required satisfaction under s 28(1A); the Examiner's reasons...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal."]