Korcynski, Walter v Qiuk Foods Pty Ltd & Ors [1984] FCA 118

Korcynski, Walter v Qiuk Foods Pty Ltd & Ors [1984] FCA 118

Section 163(4)(b) required the Minister to authorise named persons, not unidentified future office holders. The Attorney-General's document authorising 'the Minister of State for Home Affairs and Environment' showed an intention to confer authority on the holder of that office at any relevant time, not on Barry Cohen personally. Mr. Cohen's administration of Part V did not make him 'the Minister' for consenting under s. 163(4)(b), which appears in Part XII and concerned proceedings for offences against s. 79 in Part VI. Because the person purporting to give consent was not authorised within s. 163(4)(b), the proceedings should not have been instituted and the informations were dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 1984
Procedural Posture
Prosecutions on Informations Alleging Offences Against S. 79(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by Contraventions of S. 59(2) / Hearing of Defendants' Objection That Proceedings Were Not Properly Instituted and Prosecutor's Application for a Case Stated
Outcome
Application for a case stated refused; all thirty-nine informations dismissed.
Legal Topics
['consent to Institute Proceedings' 'authority of Minister or Authorised Person Under S. 163(4)(b)' 'construction of Ministerial Authorisation' 'case Stated to Full Court' 'dismissal of Informations']
['trade Practices' 'statutory Interpretation' 'criminal Procedure'] ['consent to Institute Proceedings' 'authority of Minister or Authorised Person Under S. 163(4)(b)' 'construction of Ministerial Authorisation' 'case Stated to Full Court' 'dismissal of Informations']

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

Prosecutions on Informations Alleging Offences Against S. 79(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by Contraventions of S. 59(2) / Hearing of Defendants' Objection That Proceedings Were Not Properly Instituted and Prosecutor's Application for a Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings were instituted with the consent in writing of the Minister or of a person authorised by the Minister within s. 163(4)(b) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.' "Whether the Attorney-General's document authorising the Minister of State for Home Affairs and Environment authorised Barry Cohen personally or purported to authorise an office holder from time to time." "Whether Barry Cohen was himself 'the Minister' for the purposes of s. 163(4)(b) because he administered Part V of the Trade Practices Act 1974." "Whether the prosecutor's application for a case stated under s. 25(6) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 should be granted."]

Ratio Decidendi

Section 163(4)(b) required the Minister to authorise named persons, not unidentified future office holders. The Attorney-General's document authorising 'the Minister of State for Home Affairs and Environment' showed an intention to confer authority on the holder of that office at any relevant time, not on Barry Cohen personally. Mr. Cohen's administration of Part V did not make him 'the Minister' for consenting under s. 163(4)(b), which appears in Part XII and concerned proceedings for offences against s. 79 in Part VI. Because the person purporting to give consent was not authorised within s. 163(4)(b), the proceedings should not have been instituted and the informations were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for a case stated refused; all thirty-nine informations dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for a case stated is refused.' 'The thirty-nine informations are dismissed.']