The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd v National Companies & Securities Commission & Ors [1986] FCA 243

The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd v National Companies & Securities Commission & Ors [1986] FCA 243

The Commission acted within its statutory discretion, observed the requirements of natural justice, and did not exercise its power for an improper purpose; accordingly, there is no reason for the Court to interfere with its procedural ruling allowing limited cross-examination.

Parties
Applicant: THE BROKEN HILL PROPRIETARY COMPANY LIMITED; First Respondent: NATIONAL COMPANIES AND SECURITIES COMMISSION; Second Respondent: BELL GROUP LIMITED; Third Respondent: BELL RESOURCES HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED; Fourth Respondent: AMBASSADOR NOMINEES PTY LIMITED
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 1986
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Proceeding; Decision on Application for Injunction Pending Review
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief refused; interim injunction discharged; costs to respondents.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Order of Review, Rules of Natural Justice, Exercise of Power by Administrative Tribunal, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Interlocutory Injunction Order of Review Rules of Natural Justice Exercise of Power by Administrative Tribunal Procedural Fairness

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE BROKEN HILL PROPRIETARY COMPANY LIMITED

Applicant

NATIONAL COMPANIES AND SECURITIES COMMISSION

First Respondent

BELL GROUP LIMITED

Second Respondent

BELL RESOURCES HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED

Third Respondent

AMBASSADOR NOMINEES PTY LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Proceeding; Decision on Application for Injunction Pending Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission's decision to allow cross-examination involved a breach of natural justice
  2. 2 Whether the Commission exercised its power for an improper purpose
  3. 3 Whether the Court should interfere with procedural decisions of an administrative tribunal

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission acted within its statutory discretion, observed the requirements of natural justice, and did not exercise its power for an improper purpose; accordingly, there is no reason for the Court to interfere with its procedural ruling allowing limited cross-examination.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief refused; interim injunction discharged; costs to respondents.

Orders

  • The application for interlocutory relief be refused.
  • The interim injunction granted by Jenkinson J on 2 June 1986 be discharged.