Federal Court of Australia
CATCHWORDS
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act - Relief Sought in Report of Failure of Candidate by Board of Examiners of Patent Attorneys - Challenge to Competency - Meaning of
"Decision", "Administrative Character" and "Under an Enactment"
0.54, r.4 Federal Court Rules
Secns 3, 5, Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
ALLEN JOHN EVANS v COPLEY HOWARD FRIEMANN AND ORS.
No. ACT G3 of 1981
Coram: Fox ACJ 26th June, 1981
Melbourne
saath nik" stadt sca oes tere a ee tet ow Le ? r.
svete - + ~~.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
No. ACT G3 of 1981 DISTRICT REGISTRY
Nel ae et es a et
GENERAL DIVISION
ALLEN JOHN EVANS Applicant
and
COPLEY HOWARD FRIEMANN, TREVOR NOEL BEADLE, CYRIL MONTAGUE BENTLEY, DAVID BERTRAM FITZPATRICK, DARRYL URNETT MISCHLEWSKI, PETER NORMAN NICHOLLS, RONALD FRANKLIN PICKERING, REGINALD CHARLES WRAY being the members for the time being of the BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF PATENT ATTORNEYS
Respondents
CORAM: Fox ACJ Dated 26th day of June 1981
Melbourne
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
a
The applicant, Allen John Evans in October 1980 sat for the written examinations required of a candidate for admission as a Patent Attorney. He was examined in three subjects and in December 1980 received a written notification from the Secretary of the Board of Examiners showing that he
had passed in one subject and had failed in two.
The applicant immediately wrote a letter to the Secretary requesting that he be furnished with a statement under s.13 of the Administrative Decision (Judicial Review)
Act 1977, as amended, in respect of the subjects in which he
{
had failed, setting out "findings on material question of fact, referring to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based, and giving reasons for the decision". On the same date he sent two notices, one to the Secretary of the Board, the other to the Commissioner of Patents. The former was an application for a report as to the reasons for his failure in the two subjects (see regn. 17 of the Patents Regulations) and-the latter, purporting to be made under s.30 of the Patents Act 1952, was a request for copies of his answers to the papers in which he failed. Lengthy reasons for his failure were provided. He was told that s.30 was inappropriate to secure answers to examination papers. He made a further request to the Commissioner under s.29(2) of the same Act for his answers and was told that this provision was also inappropriate. On 4 February 1981 he made a request to the Board to furnish him with copies of his answers in the subjects in which he failed, and this request was refused by
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate