Churche v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (No.2)[2006] FCA 923

Churche v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (No.2)[2006] FCA 923

ASIC's decision to provide APRA with the transcript of the applicant's s 19 examination was not a decision relating to the administration of criminal justice within the meaning of Schedule 2(e) to the ADJR Act, and is not excluded from the operation of s 13; the connection to any potential investigation or...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Determination of Separate Questions Prior to Full Hearing
Outcome
The separate question is answered 'No' (the decision was not excluded); the second question does not arise; costs are reserved.
Legal Topics
['provision of Statements of Reasons Under ADJR Act' 'exclusion of Decisions Relating to Administration of Criminal Justice From S 13']
['administrative Law'] ['provision of Statements of Reasons Under ADJR Act' 'exclusion of Decisions Relating to Administration of Criminal Justice From S 13']

Source-derived case record

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

Judicial Review Application / Determination of Separate Questions Prior to Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether ASIC's decision to provide APRA with a copy of a s 19 examination transcript is a decision 'relating to the administration of criminal justice' within Schedule 2 paragraph (e) to the ADJR Act and thus excluded from the operation of s 13"]

Ratio Decidendi

ASIC's decision to provide APRA with the transcript of the applicant's s 19 examination was not a decision relating to the administration of criminal justice within the meaning of Schedule 2(e) to the ADJR Act, and is not excluded from the operation of s 13; the connection to any potential investigation or prosecution was too tenuous and APRA's stated purposes for requesting the transcript were not limited to criminal justice administration.

Court Disposition

The separate question is answered 'No' (the decision was not excluded); the second question does not arise; costs are reserved.

Orders

  • ["The separate questions ordered on 3 July 2006 be answered as follows: '1. No. 2. Does not arise'" 'Costs of the hearing of the separate questions reserved pending further submissions.']