One.tel Limited v Australian Communications Authority [2000] FCA 1085

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

One.Tel Limited v Australian Communications Authority [2000] FCA 1085 TELECOMMUNICATIONS – universal service regime – whether sales revenue generated by activities of the first applicant's group of companies within the telecommunications industry constituted "eligible revenue" for the purposes of Telecommunications Universal Service Obligation (Eligible Revenue) Regulations 1998 (Cth) – whether regulation invalid – concept of "eligible revenue" is a "statutory fiction" – legislative intention was that regulation power be broad in ambit – regulation not a departure from the legislative plan – whether regulation was so oppressive or capricious that no reasonable mind could justify it – whether regulation gave content to the concept of eligible revenue – whether there was a real and substantial nexus between the exercise of the regulation-making power and the achievement of the purpose for which that power was conferred - construction – "worked out on a group basis" – whether phrase refers to the calculations required by the regulations whenever the starting point is the audited annual consolidated financial statements of the participating carrier's ultimate Australian parent entity Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) ss 7, 56, 81, 138(c), 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 172, 173, 177, 191, 192, 193, 196, 203, 204, 207, 594(1) Part 7, Part 7 Div 3, Part 7 Div 5, Part 7 Div 6, Part 7A Telecommunications Bill 1996 (Cth) cl 142 Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 (Cth) Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Act 1999 (Cth) Schedule 4, Item 193 Telecommunications (Universal Service Levy) Act 1997 (Cth) Telecommunications Universal Service Obligation (Eligible Revenue) Regulations 1988 (Cth) regs 5, 6, 7, 7(1), 7(2), 8(1), 8(2), 9, 10, 33, 33(2)(b), 33(3)(b), 34, 39(2), 40, 40(1)(a), Part 4, Part 4 Div 3, Part 5, Part 5 Div 3, Part 5 Div 5, Part 6, Part 6 Div 3, Sch 1, Sch 2, Sch 3 Shanahan v Scott (1957) 96 CLR 245 applied Morton v Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Limited (1951) 83 CLR 402 cited Qui v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1994) 55 FCR 439 applied Williams v Melbourne Corporation (1933) 49 CLR 142 cited Minister for Primary Industries & Energy v Austral Fisheries Pty Limited (1993) 40 FCR 381 cited Minister for State Resources v Dover Fisheries Pty Limited (1993) 43 FCR 565 cited South Australia v Tanner (1988-1989) 166 CLR 161 applied Muller v Dalgety & Co Limited (1909) 9 CLR 693 referred to Wouters v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (NSW) (1988) 84 ALR 577 referred to Re Commonwealth Bank of Australia & Commissioner for ACT Revenue (1998) 48 ALD 710 distinguished