Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [1997] FCA 175

CATCHWORDS JUDICIAL REVIEW - extension of time - factors considered - public interest - respondent on notice - detriment suffered by applicant if extension not granted - absence of explanation JUDICIAL REVIEW - whether alleged decisions and conduct were made under s 87B Trade Practices - whether undertakings made pursuant to s 87B Trade Practices Act are an enactment - whether decisions were made under the undertakings Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977: ss 3, 11 Trade Practices Act 1974: s 87B Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Australian National University v Lewins (1996) 138 ALR 1 Chittick v Ackland (1984) 1 FCR 254 General Newspapers Pty Limited v Telstra Corporation (1993) 45 FCR 164 Hunter Valley Developments Pty Limited v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344 Johns v Australian Securities Commission (No 2) (1992) 35 FCR 146 NSW Aboriginal Land Council v Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (1995) 131 ALR 559 AUSTRALIAN PETROLEUM PTY LIMITED v AUSTRALIAN AND CONSUMER COMMISSION NG 866 of 1996 LOCKHART J. SYDNEY 10 MARCH 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. NG 866 of 1996 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN PETROLEUM PTY LIMITED Applicant AND: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION Respondent JUDGE MAKING ORDER: LOCKHART J. WHERE ORDER MADE: SYDNEY DATE ORDER MADE: 10 MARCH 1997

MINUTE OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The time within which application may be made to the Court for an order of review of the decisions and conduct of the respondent made or engaged in on or about 24 September 1996 and 11 or 12 September 1996, be extended to 2 November 1996; 2. The application for an order of review filed by the applicant on 1 November 1996 shall be deemed to be the due filing of such an application; 3. The objection to competency be upheld with respect to decisions and conduct numbered (4) and (5) in the application for an order of review; but otherwise be dismissed; 4. There shall be no order for costs of either party of the motion for extension of time; 5. The respondent shall pay two-thirds of the applicant's costs of the objection to competency including reserved costs, if any. NB: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. NG 866 of 1996 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN PETROLEUM PTY LIMITED Applicant AND: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION Respondent