Australian Pesticides & Veterinary Medicines Authority v Imtrade Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1981

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Pesticides & Veterinary Medicines Authority v Imtrade Australia Pty Ltd[2008] FCA 1981 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – notice of motion for expedition of appeal – no special circumstances – motion dismissed. AUSTRALIAN PESTICIDES AND VETERINARY MEDICINES AUTHORITY v ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL and IMTRADE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 090 151 134)

WAD 240 of 2008

GILMOUR J

16 DECEMBER 2008

PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WAD 240 of 2008

BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN PESTICIDES AND VETERINARY MEDICINES AUTHORITY

Appellant

AND: IMTRADE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 090 151 134)

Respondent

JUDGE: GILMOUR J

DATE OF ORDER: 16 DECEMBER 2008

WHERE MADE: PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The motion be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the costs of the respondent. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WAD 240 of 2008

BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN PESTICIDES AND VETERINARY MEDICINES AUTHORITY

Appellant

AND: IMTRADE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 090 151 134)

Respondent

JUDGE: GILMOUR J

DATE: 16 DECEMBER 2008

PLACE: PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 There is a motion by the appellant before the Court seeking, amongst other things, expedition of the appeal. That is effected in paragraph 1 of the notice of motion. Paragraph 2 of the notice of motion is not pressed. The motion is not opposed by the respondent by reference to any asserted prejudice. Mr de Kerloy, appearing for the respondent, has simply put before the Court matters, which in his submission, the Court ought be informed in the process of making its reasoned judgment as to whether or not the motion ought be granted. 2 The motion is supported by affidavits of Dr Rajumati Bhula affirmed on 2 and 15 December 2008. The respondent has filed an affidavit of Dr Ross Rainbird sworn 12 December 2008. It is the fact, as is evident from the judgment at first instance, that the name and address of the manufacturer in relation to products, the subject of entry in the relevant record of the register, were in each case fictitious. 3 The appellant acknowledges rightly that it needs to demonstrate special circumstances in order to take it out of the ordinary course of how appeals in this Court are disposed of. The special circumstances relied upon by the appellant are as follows: · The Record and the Register maintained under the Agvet Code currently contain entries: - the approvals and registrations of which (the APVMA contends) were based upon false information as to manufacturer identity and site of manufacture; and - some of which still contain false information as to manufacturer identity and site of manufacture.