Merman Pty Ltd v Comptroller-General of Customs & Ors [1988] FCA 326

Merman Pty Ltd v Comptroller-General of Customs & Ors [1988] FCA 326

Time was extended because the matters raised in the proposed notices were likely to be argued and determined in the hearing in any event, no separate preliminary hearing was proposed, the respondents had allowed for the argument in the hearing estimate, the proceedings had moved quickly, and there was no real or marked prejudice to the applicant; the extension was subject to the respondents bearing the applicant's costs of their respective motions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 1988
Procedural Posture
Composite Application Seeking Orders Under Ss.5 and 6 of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 and S.39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903. / Decision on Motions by the First and Second Respondents and the Fourth Respondent for Extension of Time to File Notices of Objection to Competency.
Outcome
Extension of time granted subject to costs.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review of Administrative Action' 'objection to Competency' 'extension of Time' 'anti Dumping Duties' 'federal Court Jurisdiction Under S.39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903']
['administrative Law' 'federal Court Procedure' 'customs and Excise' 'anti Dumping'] ['judicial Review of Administrative Action' 'objection to Competency' 'extension of Time' 'anti Dumping Duties' 'federal Court Jurisdiction Under S.39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903']

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

Composite Application Seeking Orders Under Ss.5 and 6 of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 and S.39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903. / Decision on Motions by the First and Second Respondents and the Fourth Respondent for Extension of Time to File Notices of Objection to Competency.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first and second respondents and the fourth respondent should be granted an extension of time to file notices of objection to competency.' 'Whether allowing the notices out of time would prejudice the applicant.' 'The nature and function of a notice of objection to competency in judicial review proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Time was extended because the matters raised in the proposed notices were likely to be argued and determined in the hearing in any event, no separate preliminary hearing was proposed, the respondents had allowed for the argument in the hearing estimate, the proceedings had moved quickly, and there was no real or marked prejudice to the applicant; the extension was subject to the respondents bearing the applicant's costs of their respective motions.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted subject to costs.

Orders

  • ['The first and second respondents and the fourth respondent were permitted an extension of time to file notices of objection to competency.' "The respondents are to bear the applicant's costs of their respective motions."]