Phosphate Resources Ltd v The Commonwealth [2003] FCA 447

Phosphate Resources Ltd v The Commonwealth [2003] FCA 447

Section 4(2)(b) of the Utilities and Services Ordinance 1996 does not require ascertainment of the actual cost of supply to an individual user. A tariff set by reference to averaged costs or comparable external benchmarks bears a reasonable relationship to costs within the statutory meaning. Since the fee charged to the applicant was less than the average cost of supply, and thus met the reasonable relationship test, no further discovery or declaratory relief was warranted.

Parties
Applicant: Phosphate Resources Limited; First Respondent: The Commonwealth of Australia; Second Respondent: William Leonard Taylor as Administrator of the Territory of Christmas Island
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Declaratory Relief and Discovery / Interlocutory Application; Judgment on Constructional Point and Discovery
Outcome
Substituted application for declaratory relief and motion for discovery dismissed in relation to paragraphs 1 to 4; applicant to pay costs of the discovery motion; costs otherwise reserved; matter listed for directions.
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Validity of Administrative Determination, Fee Determination for Utilities, Reasonable Relationship to Cost
Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Validity of Administrative Determination Fee Determination for Utilities Reasonable Relationship to Cost

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phosphate Resources Limited

Applicant

The Commonwealth of Australia

First Respondent

William Leonard Taylor as Administrator of the Territory of Christmas Island

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Declaratory Relief and Discovery / Interlocutory Application; Judgment on Constructional Point and Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fee determination for electricity supply complied with section 4(2)(b) of the Utilities and Services Ordinance 1996—specifically, whether fees bore a ‘reasonable relationship’ to the cost of supply or were less than cost; whether ‘cost of supplying’ refers to the actual cost to the individual user or may be averaged/general; whether discovery of cost documents was necessary

Ratio Decidendi

Section 4(2)(b) of the Utilities and Services Ordinance 1996 does not require ascertainment of the actual cost of supply to an individual user. A tariff set by reference to averaged costs or comparable external benchmarks bears a reasonable relationship to costs within the statutory meaning. Since the fee charged to the applicant was less than the average cost of supply, and thus met the reasonable relationship test, no further discovery or declaratory relief was warranted.

Court Disposition

Substituted application for declaratory relief and motion for discovery dismissed in relation to paragraphs 1 to 4; applicant to pay costs of the discovery motion; costs otherwise reserved; matter listed for directions.

Orders

  • Substituted application dismissed in respect of paragraphs 1 to 4 of the claims for relief.
  • Applicant's motion for discovery dismissed.