Aboriginal Development Commission & Ors v Minister of State for Aboriginal Affairs (G.L. Hand), & Ors [1988] FCA 318

s NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION —— v a : , 2 =.) WO, SIS Rage

on)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G954 of 1988

er ee ee ee ee

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: ABORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

First Applicant

LENA_ANNAI PASSI, JOHN EDWARD ATKINSON, ANDREW GEORGE THOMAS, MARIA JOYCE THOMPSON, HELEN DJIMBARRWALA WILLIAMS, BEHN WARD and PHILLIP YANNER

Second Applicants OSSIE BENJAMIN CRUSE

Third Applicant

ig

GERARD LESLIE HAND, THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

TERENCE JOSEPH O'SHANE, LOIS O' DONOGHUE CBE AM, HARLES NELSON PERKINS, GETANO BELFORD LUI JR, ESTHER CARROLL, PETER SHANE YU, ROBERT LEE and PATRICK LIONEL DODSON

ig

CORAM: Davies J. DATE: 7 June 1988 PLACE: Sydney

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EX TEMPORE

I order that the first applicant pay the costs of the

2. second respondents to these proceedings and that it pay the costs of the first respondent up to, but excluding, Friday, 20 May 1988. I grant leave to the first respondent to file notice of

discontinuance.

There is now no applicant actually present in Court. The second and third applicants were members of the Aboriginal Development Commission at the time when these proceedings were first initiated by the Commission and they were joined when it was realized that they were necessary parties to the relief that the first applicant sought. The Court has had some communication from at least one of the applicants. The third applicant, Ossie Benjamin Cruse, has phoned the registry to say that he is unable to attend this morning as he is not in Sydney and does not have the finance to come here; but he asked the registry for an adjournment of the proceedings so that he could obtain legal aid

and pursue the claim.

In my opinion, it would be inappropriate to adjourn the proceedings. It is a principle of administrative law that decisions challenged should be challenged promptly. It is inappropriate in a case such as this to put off the question whether or not the second and third applicants were properly dismissed as members of the Commission and whether the second respondents were lawfully appointed members in their place. That question, if it is to be determined by the Court, should be determined as soon as reasonably practical. If it cannot be