Thomas, J.E. v. Appleton, P. [1994] FCA 832

Thomas, J.E. v. Appleton, P. [1994] FCA 832

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not maintain the challenge to the finding that the respondent was not entitled to take the disputed matters into account, the 1993 licence and management plan were no longer operative, and there was no evidence enabling the Court to conclude that declaratory relief would have utility for future allocations. The Court therefore declined to reach a final view about the extent of the respondent's discretion or the matters he was entitled to take into account.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 1994
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Dismissal of an Application for Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 / Full Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'fishing Licence Conditions' 'protected Zone Joint Authority' 'discretion of Delegated Decision Maker' 'declaratory Relief' 'mootness or Utility']
['administrative Law' 'fisheries Regulation'] ['judicial Review' 'fishing Licence Conditions' 'protected Zone Joint Authority' 'discretion of Delegated Decision Maker' 'declaratory Relief' 'mootness or Utility']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Dismissal of an Application for Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 / Full Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent was entitled to take into account time lost by the appellant in changing licences and fishing days spent in Papua New Guinea waters when reviewing the allocation of fishing days under a Torres Strait prawn fishing licence.' 'Whether any residuary discretion reposed in the respondent extended to those matters.' 'Whether the Court should grant declaratory relief where the licence and the 1993 management plan were no longer operative and there was no evidence of continuing utility.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not maintain the challenge to the finding that the respondent was not entitled to take the disputed matters into account, the 1993 licence and management plan were no longer operative, and there was no evidence enabling the Court to conclude that declaratory relief would have utility for future allocations. The Court therefore declined to reach a final view about the extent of the respondent's discretion or the matters he was entitled to take into account.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' 'There should be no order in respect of the costs of the appeal.']