Australian Trade Commission v Australia's Best Foods [1997] FCA 975

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Administrative Law - Administrative Appeals Tribunal - appeal from - eligibility for an export development grant - whether criteria for "eligible expenditure" set out in s 11A(3) of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 (Cth) are cumulative in effect - appeal allowed.

Matter No. SG25 of 1997 AUSTRALIAN TRADE COMMISSION v AUSTRALIA'S BEST FOODS VON DOUSSA J ADELAIDE 19 SEPTEMBER 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No SG 25 of 1997 ) GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN TRADE COMMISSION

Applicant

AND: AUSTRALIA'S BEST FOODS

Respondent

JUDGE: VON DOUSSA J PLACE: ADELAIDE DATED: 19 SEPTEMBER 1997

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be allowed. 2. The determination of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be set aside and in lieu thereof there be a determination that the claim for the sum of $18,600 is not one for "eligible expenditure" within the meaning of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) SG 25 of 1997 ) GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN TRADE COMMISSION

Applicant

AND: AUSTRALIA'S BEST FOODS

Respondent

JUDGE: VON DOUSSA PLACE: ADELAIDE DATED: 19 SEPTEMBER 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an appeal on a question of law pursuant to s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). The Australian Trade Commission ("the Commission") seeks to have set aside a decision of the Tribunal which determined, contrary to an earlier decision of the Commission, that the respondent, Australia's Best Foods, was entitled to a grant under the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 (Cth) ("the Act") in respect of an expenditure of $18,600 in the 1992-1993 financial year. The short point in the appeal concerns the operation of s 11A(3) of the Act, which provides the basic test of what constitutes "eligible expenditure" of an approved joint venture or an approved consortium. When the notice of appeal was served the respondent advised the Court that it did not intend to appear on the hearing of the appeal, and did not wish to make any submission on its merits. It has not done so.