Case: Hoskins v Van Den-Braak (1998) 43 NSWLR 290
Outcome: referred to
v Australian Fisheries Management Authority [2006] FCA 1220 (8 September 2006) [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ WorldLII ] [ Search ] [ Feedback ] Federal Court of Australia You are here: &nbsp; AustLII &gt;&gt; Databases &gt;&gt; Federal Court of Australia &gt;&gt; 2006 &gt;&gt; [2006] FCA 1220 [ Database Search ] [ Name Search ] [ Recent Decisions ] [ Noteup ] [ Download ] [ Help ] Rhodes v Australian Fisheries Management Authority [2006] FCA 1220 (8 September 2006) Last Updated: 11 September 2006 FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Rhodes v Australian Fisheries Management Authority [2006] FCA 1220 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW review of decision of AAT which affirmed decision of Australian Fisheries Management Authority to cancel fishing permit relating to Southern Shark Fishery in Bass Strait region interpretation of 2003 Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Plan and Offshore Constitutional Settlement to extent either imposed 'limited entry' or 'no new permits' policy whether Tribunal erred in finding as relevant to refusal to grant fishing permit enforcement of AFMA's cost recovery procedures claim of denial of natural justice in relation to processes implemented by Australian Fisheries Management Authority up to time of cancellation of applicant's fishing permit Fisheries Management Act 1991 (Cth) ss 17 , 32 , 38 , 39 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) Offshore Constitutional Settlement Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Plan 2003 Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 discussed Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Gray (1994) 50 FCR 189 discussed Re Green and Australian Fisheries Management Authority [2004] AATA 426 ; (2004) 81 ALD 194 referred to Legione v Hateley [1983] HCA 11 ; (1983) 152 CLR 406 discussed Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1963] HCA 41 ; (1963) 113 CLR 475 discussed National Companies and Securities Commission v News Corporation Ltd [1984] HCA 29 ; (1984) 156 CLR 296 referred to R v Small Claims Tribunal and Homewood; Ex parte Cameron [1976] VR 427 referred to Cameron v Cole [1944] HCA 5 ; (1943) 68 CLR 571 referred to Hoskins v Van Den-Braak (1998) 43 NSWLR 290 referred to Clements v Independent Indigenous Advisory Committee [2003] FCAFC 143 ; (2003) 131 FCR 28 referred to Gribbles Pathology (Vic) Pty Ltd v Cassidy [2002] FCA 859 ; (2002) 122 FCR 78 discussed DAVID JOHN RHODES v AUSTRALIAN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY TAD 31 OF 2005 CONTI J 8 SEPTEMBER 2006 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY TAD 31 OF 2005 ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DAVIS BETWEEN: DAVID JOHN RHODES Applicant AND: AUSTRALIAN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY Respondent JUDGE: CONTI J DATE OF ORDER: 8 SEPTEMBER 2006 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The application for review by way of appeal from the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 27 July 2005 be dismissed. The first was R v Small Claims Tribunal and Homewood; Ex parte Cameron [1976] VR 427, which related to an extension of the scope of a claim for breach of contract based upon an alleged misrepresentation without the respondent to the proceedings having been given notice of the misrepresentation as the basis for that extended claim, and therefore having been extended an opportunity to meet that case. The second was Cameron v Cole [1944] HCA 5 ; (1943) 68 CLR 571, where there had occurred an omission, albeit inadvertent, to notify a debtor of an adjourned hearing date of a bankruptcy petition, and where an order for sequestration nevertheless was made. The third was Hoskins v Van Den-Braak (1998) 43 NSWLR 290, where a person was held entitled to have a judgment set aside unconditionally, in circumstances where the claim on which the judgment was based was not served on that person or on anyone retained on that person's behalf. The fourth was Clements v Independent Indigenous Advisory Committee [2003] FCAFC 143 ; (2003) 131 FCR 28 at [33] , where it was held that written notice of a hearing date did not reach an applicant for relief in time, and an incorrect recording of his telephone number had frustrated attempts to communicate with that person by telephone, and further that the tribunal decision-maker was unaware of the absence of notice of the hearing. As I have already observed, none of those particular cases involved the operation of a statutory scheme such as Mr Rhodes must here address.