Triple A FM Pty Ltd v. Australia Broadcasting Tribunal & Ors [1987] FCA 93

Triple A FM Pty Ltd v. Australia Broadcasting Tribunal & Ors [1987] FCA 93

The Tribunal did not err in law by considering both supplementary licence applications together or by taking into account broader public interest considerations beyond the express statutory criteria. The Tribunal's approach in granting both supplementary licences and balancing the dilution of concentration of control, the need for service diversity, and the potential public benefit fell within its powers under the relevant statutory framework. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: TRIPLE A FM PTY LIMITED; First Respondent: AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL; Second Respondent: Capital City Broadcasters Pty Limited (2CC); Third Respondent: Macquarie Broadcasting Holdings Limited (2CA)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 1987
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / First Instance Decision Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Broadcasting Licences, Public Interest, Concentration of Media Ownership, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Media Law Broadcasting Licences Public Interest Concentration of Media Ownership Statutory Interpretation

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TRIPLE A FM PTY LIMITED

Applicant

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

Capital City Broadcasters Pty Limited (2CC)

Second Respondent

Macquarie Broadcasting Holdings Limited (2CA)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / First Instance Decision Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal was obliged to consider if it was in the public interest that applications for an additional commercial broadcasting station should be invited
  2. 2 The scope of matters the Tribunal could consider in determining that question
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal properly addressed the statutory criteria, including undue concentration of media ownership

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in law by considering both supplementary licence applications together or by taking into account broader public interest considerations beyond the express statutory criteria. The Tribunal's approach in granting both supplementary licences and balancing the dilution of concentration of control, the need for service diversity, and the potential public benefit fell within its powers under the relevant statutory framework. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the respondents' costs thereof.