Zo IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION No. G403 of 1983 BETWEEN : MID-COAST RADIO PTY. LIMITED Applicant AND: THE AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL First respondent ie Second respondent ORDER Judge making orders: Beaumont, J. Date orders made: 15 December, 1983. Where made: Sydney. THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. I order that, upon conclusion of the addresses by the parties before the consolidated inquiry described in the applic- ation filed herein on 14 December, 1983, all further proceedings in the said inquiry be stayed until further order of the Court. 2. I direct that: (a) the applicant file and serve a statement of its claim on or before 23 December, 1983; (b) the respondents file and serve any defence on or before 5 January, 1984; COMMERCIAL RADIO COFFS HARBOUR LIMITED ({c) (d) (e) 3. the applicant file any reply on or before 12 January, 1984; the parties file and serve on or before 19 January, 1984 any affidavit to be relied on by any of them; the parties exchange on or before 26 January, 1984 copies of any documents to be tendered by any of them in addition to any documents annexed or exhibited to any affidavit filed. I order that costs of this motion be costs in the application for review. I reserve liberty to any party to apply on two days' I fix the final hearing of the application for review to commence on 13 February, 1984. 6. I fix 9.30 a.m. on 8 February, 1984 for mention of the matter and for the return of any subpoenae. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY No. G403 of 1983 GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: MID-COAST RADIO PTY. LIMITED Applicant AND: THE AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL First respondent a AND: COMMERCIAL RADIO COFFS HARBOUR LIMITED Second respondent CORAM: BEAUMONT, J. DATED: 15 December, 1983. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT In these proceedings, which were instituted yesterday, application 1s made for a stay of the hearing now proceeding (but virtually concluded) before the respondent Tribunal. Although the first respondent offers no active opposition to that course, the second respondent opposes a stay in the terms sought but provided an early hearing date is fixed, the second respondent does not object to an order being made which, whilst not staying the hearing before the Tribunal, stays the making of any decision by the Tribunal on the applications before it, pending the determination of this application for judicial review. Yesterday, I heard argument as to where the balance of convenience lies in the motion to stay the hearing before the Tribunal. I have now also read the affidavit of Mr. Willmott sworn on 13 December, 1983 so as to be able to form a view as to firstly, the nature of the issues likely to arise in the applic- ation for review and secondly, the likely hearing time required for that application. A perusal of that affidavit suggests that although the application for Judicial review will involve, in the main, legal questions, i1t is likely that it will be necessary that the Judge entertaining the application be taken to a large body of background Material 1n order that he may properly understand the setting in which the application is made; also, discretionary defences may well be raised which involve factual matters. It is also possible that other parties now before the Tribunal will seek leave to be joined in these proceedings. On that footing, it is unlikely, in my view, that the final hearing of the application for judicial review would take less than a week. It is also unlikely, in my view, that the parties will be ready for a final hearing in less than a month. I am further of the view that pleadings should be ordered. Against that background, I turn to consider the application for a stay of the hearing before the Tribunal. As a general rule, the Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1s reluctant to interrupt proceedings pending before another body or tribunal (cf. Lamb v. Moss, unreported Full Federal Court 12 October, 1983). Further, I think that there is considerable force in the submission put by Mr. Bennett, Q.C. on behalf of the second respondent that, provided a stay of the decision itself is granted (and that decision 1s not expected before next March), no substantial hardship will be suffered by the applicant 1f the hearing proceeds to a conclusion, which 1s anticipated to be tomorrow, provided that the applicant is not thereby pre- judiced in the event, for example, that orders 3 or 4 sought in the application for an order to review are made. Wo doubt, in the event of order 3 or order 4 being made, the Court could, if necessary, give a consequential direction that any party be per- mitted to re-open its case before the Tribunal for that purpose: this would appear to deal with the situation adequately. I propose to decline to grant an immediate stay but to grant: a deferred stay, to take effect upon the conclusion of addresses before the Tribunal. I propose to make the following orders and directions: 1. I order that, upon conclusion of the addresses by the parties before the consolidated inquiry described in the application filed herein on 14 December, 1983, all further proceedings in the said inquiry be stayed until further order of the Court. 2. I direct that: (a) the applicant file and serve a statement of its claim on or before 23 December, 1983; (b) the respondents file and serve any defence on or before 5 January, 1984; (c) the applicant file any reply on or before 12 January, 1984; (d) (e) 3. the parties file and serve any affidavit to be relied the parties exchange on or copies of any documents to on or before 19 January, 1984 on by any of them; before 26 January, 1984 be tendered by any of them in addition to any documents annexed or exhibited to any affidavit filed. I order that costs of this application for review. motion be costs in the 4. I reserve liberty to any party to apply on two days' notice. 5. I fix the final hearing of the application for review to commence on 13 February, 1984. 6. I fix 9.30 a.m. on 8 February, 1984 for mention of the Matter and for the return of any subpoenae. ety ocr this cnd the 3 preceding ROCA rea an Wye CTS & Le COpy Cf 23 reasons for .Mr Justice Beaumont. ~ Pham Dated [5 December 119.3. ween ne ayo