AB v National Crime Authority [1996] FCA 122

CATCHWORDS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Judicial review - practice and procedure - whether limited discovery should be ordered National Crime Authority Act 1984 (Cth) ss 4(1) 11(2) 13(1) 13(2)(a) 16 28(1) 28(2) 28(3) 28(7) 29 29A 29B 30(2) 30(11) 32(2) 32(12)(b) National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Act 1984 (Vic) Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ss 15AB 46(1)(a) W.A. Pines Pty Ltd v Bannerman (1980) 41 FLR 175 Australian Securities Commission v Somerville (1994) 51 FCR 38 AB V NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY No VG 765 of 1995 NORTHROP J MELBOURNE 7 MARCH 1996

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No VG 765 of 1995 GENERAL DIVISION

B E T W E E N : AB Applicant A N D : NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY Respondent

COURT: NORTHROP J PLACE: MELBOURNE DATE: 7 MARCH 1996

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The applicant's motion, notice of which is dated 14 November 1995, be refused with costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No VG 765 of 1995 GENERAL DIVISION

B E T W E E N : AB Applicant A N D : NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY Respondent

COURT: NORTHROP J PLACE: MELBOURNE DATE: 7 MARCH 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The matter for decision before the Court has arisen in somewhat unusual circumstances. On 8 September 1995 the applicant, under summons, attended a meeting being held by the National Crime Authority ("the NCA") pursuant to powers conferred by the National Crime Authority Act 1984 (Cth) (the "NCA Act") and its complementary Acts including the National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Act 1984 (Vic) "the Victorian Act". The applicant was represented by counsel. Counsel told the NCA that the applicant proposed to challenge the validity of the summons by way of a challenge to the power of the NCA to issue the summons. The applicant was sworn, was identified and was asked a question by the member of the NCA presiding at the meeting. Counsel for the applicant claimed there were reasonable excuses for the applicant to refuse to answer the question. Following submissions by counsel for the applicant and by counsel assisting the NCA, the member of the NCA made a decision, giving reasons, that the claim by the applicant to be entitled to refuse to answer the question was not justified and formally required the applicant to answer the question. The meeting was adjourned to enable the applicant to make an application under subsection 32(2) of the NCA Act for an order of review in respect of that decision. The application under subsection 32(2) of the NCA Act was issued on 14 September 1995 and a number of directions hearings have been held. The substantive grounds relied upon to support the application are not readily apparent from a consideration of the documents filed in Court. At a directions hearing held on 27 October 1995 the Court made an order as follows: "2. That the applicant file and serve on the respondent by 3 November 1995 a notice of discovery (not being general discovery) in such terms as the applicant may be advised."