Soper v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2004] FCA 854

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Soper v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2004] FCA 854 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – failure to take into account relevant consideration – grant by Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) of authorisation to make enquiries under s 596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – whether a duty to enquire acts as an implied constraint on definition of 'eligible applicant' – whether attitude of liquidator to grant of authorisation a mandatory relevant consideration – no duty to enquire – attitude of liquidator not mandatory relevant consideration ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – decision asserted to be manifestly unreasonable by ASIC's failure to make enquiries – no manifest unreasonableness demonstrated EVIDENCE – no evidence that delegate did or did not take relevant matters into account – whether an inference can be drawn that the delegate failed to consider relevant matters – not possible to draw inference WORDS AND PHRASES – 'eligible applicant' Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5, 13, Sch 2 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B(1), 39B(1A)(c) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 9, 596A, 596B Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 11, 11(4) Cubillo v Commonwealth of Australia (2001) 112 FCR 455 cited Domino Hire Pty Ltd v Pioneer Park Pty Ltd (in liq) (2003) 21 ACLC 1330 considered Elias v Commissioner of Taxation (2002) 123 FCR 499 cited Luu v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39 cited Re Excel Finance Corporation Ltd v England (1994) 52 FCR 69 applied Mercantile Mutual Life Insurance v ASC (1993) 40 FCR 409 cited Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 applied Minister for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Affairs v Western Australia (1996) 67 FCR 40 cited Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs v W157/00A (2002) 125 FCR 433 cited Prasad v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1985) 6 FCR 155 referred to Queensland Building Services v Australian Securities Commission (1997) 73 FCR 29 referred to Tickner v Bropho (1993) 40 FCR 183 cited