X v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority [2007] HCA 4

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE, CALLINAN, HEYDON AND CRENNAN JJ

X & ORS APPELLANTS

AND

AUSTRALIAN PRUDENTIAL REGULATION

AUTHORITY & ANOR RESPONDENTS

X v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority [2007] HCA 4

21 February 2007

S284/2006

ORDER

1. Set aside Paragraph 1 of the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia made on 22 March 2006 in each of matters numbered NSD 1793 of 2005 and NSD 1794 of 2005 and in its place order that:

(a) Paragraph 2 of the orders made by Lindgren J on 16 September 2005 is varied to the extent necessary to provide that

Question B: "Does the use by the first or second respondent of the evidence of the first applicant before the HIH Royal Commission contravene ss 6DD or 6M of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth)?"

is answered

"The answer to the question is governed by the construction of s 6M alone, and so understood is 'No'."

(b) The appeal is otherwise dismissed.

2. Otherwise, appeal dismissed with costs.

On appeal from the Federal Court of Australia

Representation

D F Jackson QC with D Hogan-Doran for the appellants (instructed by Minter Ellison)

D M J Bennett QC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth with J W J Stevenson SC, M N Allars and V E Whittaker for the respondents (instructed by Sparke Helmore)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

X v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority

Administrative law – Judicial review – Injunction and declaratory relief – s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – Whether the appellants are entitled to an order restraining the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority ("APRA") from acting on a "preliminary view" formed by its Senior Manager that the first and third appellants were not "fit and proper" to act as senior managers of a foreign general insurer.