Woss, Ronald Warren v Jacobsen, Johannes & Anor [1985] FCA 222

Woss, Ronald Warren v Jacobsen, Johannes & Anor [1985] FCA 222

The appeal was dismissed because the warrants were validly issued in accordance with the law of Queensland, s.18 of the Service and Execution of Process Act applied, and the Supreme Court of Western Australia had full jurisdiction for review under s.19; adequate provision for review existed and the Federal Court's discretion under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act was properly exercised to refuse the application.

Parties
Appellant: Ronald Warren Woss; First Respondent: Johannes Jacobsen; Second Respondent: Con Zempilas
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 1985
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Determination of Appeal From Single Judge of Federal Court Dismissing Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Jurisdiction, Extradition, Service and Execution of Process, Conspiracy, Procedure on Appeal
Administrative Law Criminal Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Jurisdiction Extradition Service and Execution of Process Conspiracy +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Warren Woss

Appellant

Johannes Jacobsen

First Respondent

Con Zempilas

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Determination of Appeal From Single Judge of Federal Court Dismissing Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act to review a decision under s.18 of the Service and Execution of Process Act
  2. 2 Whether a warrant for apprehension issued under the Justices Act (Qld) constitutes a warrant issued 'in accordance with the law of a State' as required by s.18 of the Service and Execution of Process Act
  3. 3 Whether s.9 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act deprives the State Supreme Court of jurisdiction under s.19 of the Service and Execution of Process Act

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the warrants were validly issued in accordance with the law of Queensland, s.18 of the Service and Execution of Process Act applied, and the Supreme Court of Western Australia had full jurisdiction for review under s.19; adequate provision for review existed and the Federal Court's discretion under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act was properly exercised to refuse the application.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal.