Neat Domestic Training Pty Ltd v AWB Ltd

Last updated

NEAT Domestic Trading Pty Ltd v AWB Ltd
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameNEAT Domestic Trading Pty Ltd v AWB Ltd and Anor Respondents
Decided19 June 2003
Citation(s) (2003) 216 CLR 277
Case history
Prior action(s)none
Subsequent action(s)none
Case opinions
(4:1) Appeal dismissed. Remedy available, ground of review not made out (per Gleeson CJ). No public law remedy available(per McHugh, Hayne and Callinan JJ)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Kirby, Hayne and Callinan JJ

NEAT Domestic Trading Pty Ltd v AWB Ltd was a case before the High Court of Australia which was decided in 2003.

Contents

Background

AWB (a private corporation owned by wheat growers) had been granted a monopoly over the export of wheat in Australia. No other company could export wheat in bulk without the AWB's consent. NEAT Domestic Trading was a grain trader. It requested consent to export wheat and was refused. NEAT then appealed this decision, ultimately to the High Court.

NEAT claimed that AWB was acting in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits of the case, thereby invoking s5(2)(f) and s6(2)(f) of the Judicial Review Act 1977(Cth). The policy in question was that AWB would refuse export permits to other bodies.

Decision

Gleeson CJ found against NEAT on the grounds that the policy in question was legal, and that no material had been put to AWB that could persuade it to deviate from its policy. He concluded, although it was unnecessary to decide, that the decision was of an administrative character made under an enactment and therefore reviewable.

McHugh, Hayne and Callinan JJ held that public law remedies (such as review under the JR Act) were not available against AWB because of the role granted to it under the Act, the private character of AWB, being a company incorporated under corporations legislation and the fact that it was impossible to impose public law obligations on AWB and allow it to pursue its private interests.

Kirby J dissented, holding that the decision was one of an administrative character in the form outlined, and that the decisions at issue were each invalid and void.

See also

Related Research Articles

In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. It remains as one of the most important and far-reaching cases concerning the New Deal, and it set a precedent for an expansive reading of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause for decades to come. The goal of the legal challenge was to end the entire federal crop support program by declaring it unconstitutional.

Section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution, is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the power to legislate with respect to "foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth". This power has become known as "the corporations power", the extent of which has been the subject of numerous judicial cases.

AWB Limited was a major grain marketing organisation based in Australia. Founded in 1939 by the Government of Australia as the Australian Wheat Board, in 1999 it became a private company, owned by wheat growers. It was acquired by Agrium in 2010.

Australian administrative law defines the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of Australian governments. It is basically a common law system, with an increasing statutory overlay that has shifted its focus toward codified judicial review and to tribunals with extensive jurisdiction.

The Export Wheat Commission (EWC) was a statutory authority of the Australian government. The EWC was established on 1 October 2007 and superseded the Wheat Export Authority (WEA). The EWC was a statutory commission operating under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.

The Cole Inquiry, formally the Inquiry into certain Australian companies in relation to the UN Oil-For-Food Programme, was a Royal Commission established by the Australian government pursuant to the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth) to investigate "whether decisions, actions, conduct or payments by Australian companies mentioned in the Volcker Inquiry into the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme breached any Federal, State or Territory law."

<i>OSullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd</i>

O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd, was a case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the scope of the trade and commerce power, under s 51(i) of the Australian Constitution, and inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws, under section 109 of the Constitution.

Judicial review is a part of UK constitutional law that enables people to challenge the exercise of power, often by a public body. A person who feels that an exercise of power is unlawful may apply to the Administrative Court for a court to decide whether a decision followed the law. If the court finds the decision unlawful it may have it set aside (quashed) and possibly award damages. A court may impose an injunction upon the public body.

<i>Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service</i> United Kingdom constitutional law

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] UKHL 9, or the GCHQ case, is a United Kingdom constitutional law and UK labour law case that held the royal prerogative was subject to judicial review.

United Kingdom administrative law

United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years. Almost any public body, or private bodies exercising public functions, can be the target of judicial review, including a government department, a local council, any Minister, the Prime Minister, or any other body that is created by law. The only public body whose decisions cannot be reviewed is Parliament, when it passes an Act. Otherwise, a claimant can argue that a public body's decision was unlawful in five main types of case: (1) it exceeded the lawful power of the body, used its power for an improper purpose, or acted unreasonably, (2) it violated a legitimate expectation, (3) failed to exercise relevant and independent judgement, (4) exhibited bias or a conflict of interest, or failed to give a fair hearing, and (5) violated a human right. As a remedy, a claimant can ask for the public body's decisions to be declared void and quashed, or it could ask for an order to make the body do something, or prevent the body from acting unlawfully. A court may also declare the parties' rights and duties, give an injunction, or compensation could also be payable in tort or contract.

The Wheat Export Authority (WEA) was established 1 July 1999 as part of restructuring the former government-owned Australian Wheat Board in preparation for its sale as AWB Limited. It was felt that a number of the tasks carried out by the previous Australian Wheat Board would not be appropriate for a privately owned body; thus, the WEA was established. The WEA's role was determined by the Wheat Marketing Act 1989 and its operations were funded by a charge on Australian wheat exports.

Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) or investment court system (ICS) is a system through which investors can sue countries for discriminatory practices concerning foreign direct investment. The purpose of the ISDS is to benefit the countries that voluntarily adhere to it; these countries benefit because foreign investors are motivated to invest under the protection that ISDS affords.

Administrative law in Singapore Law of Singapores government agencies

Administrative law in Singapore is a branch of public law that is concerned with the control of governmental powers as exercised through its various administrative agencies. Administrative law requires administrators – ministers, civil servants and public authorities – to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the law. Singapore administrative law is largely based on English administrative law, which the nation inherited at independence in 1965.

Illegality in Singapore administrative law Singaporean judicial review doctrine

Illegality is one of the three broad headings of judicial review of administrative action in Singapore, the others being irrationality and procedural impropriety. To avoid acting illegally, an administrative body or public authority must correctly understand the law regulating its power to act and to make decisions, and give effect to it.

Threshold issues in Singapore administrative law Legal requirements to be satisfied to bring cases to the High Court

Threshold issues are legal requirements in Singapore administrative law that must be satisfied by applicants before their claims for judicial review of acts or decisions of public authorities can be dealt with by the High Court. These include showing that they have standing to bring cases, and that the matters are amenable to judicial review and justiciable by the Court.

<i>New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> (1915)

New South Wales v Commonwealth, commonly known as the Wheat case, or more recently as the Inter-State Commission case, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1915 regarding judicial separation of power. It was also a leading case on the freedom of interstate trade and commerce that is guaranteed by section 92 of the Constitution.

The wheat industry of Australia has been organised by government regulation, by both the Commonwealth Government and state governments.

The failure of a public authority to take into account relevant considerations and the taking of irrelevant ones into account are grounds of judicial review in Singapore administrative law. They are regarded as forms of illegality.

<i>R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment</i>

R v SS for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] UKHL 23 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning judicial review.