Luttick Australia Pty Ltd v. Export Development Grants Board [1985] FCA 173

Luttick Australia Pty Ltd v. Export Development Grants Board [1985] FCA 173

The definition of 'offal' under Regulation 7, dependent on the ordinary meaning of 'carcase', necessarily includes vells as excluded goods. The statutory definition must be applied; there is no sufficient ambiguity or legislative intent to prefer the technical or trade meaning of 'carcase'.

Parties
Applicant: Luttick Australia Pty. Ltd.; Respondent: Export Development Grants Board
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 1985
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Export Incentive Grants, Interpretation of Statutory Definitions, Export Expansion Grants Regulations
Administrative Law Export Incentive Grants Interpretation of Statutory Definitions Export Expansion Grants Regulations

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luttick Australia Pty. Ltd.

Applicant

Export Development Grants Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether vells (abomasum) are included in the statutory definition of 'offal' under Export Expansion Grants Regulations
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'carcase' and 'offal' in the context of export incentive grants

Ratio Decidendi

The definition of 'offal' under Regulation 7, dependent on the ordinary meaning of 'carcase', necessarily includes vells as excluded goods. The statutory definition must be applied; there is no sufficient ambiguity or legislative intent to prefer the technical or trade meaning of 'carcase'.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed with costs