Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL v. BOND AND OTHERS |
| Decided | 1990 |
| Citation | 170 CLR 321 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Mason C.J., Brennan, Deane, Toohey, and Gaudron JJ |
| Case opinions | |
| Appeal allowed Mason CJ, Brennan J Deane J Toohey & Gaudron JJ | |
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond, also known as 'Bond', is a decision of the High Court of Australia.
It is an important case in Australian Administrative Law, particularly for its writings about the meaning of a 'decision' and 'error of law'.
As of September 2020, 'Bond' is the 13th most cited case of the High Court.[1][2]
The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal had launched an investigation into Alan Bond and companies associated with him, for the purposes of determining whether he (or any of his companies) were a 'fit and proper person' to hold a broadcasting license.[3]
Prior to making a final decision to suspend or revoke the license, the Tribunal held an inquiry into various matters; and found that Mr Bond was guilty of improper conduct under the act. It therefore determined that he and his companies would not be ultimately found to be a fit and proper person under the act, in the interim before the final decision.
Bond and the licensees sought a review of those actions and findings.
Before the federal court and the High Court, the jurisdiction of the courts over the Tribunal's decisions were questioned. The ADJR Act allowed judicial review for a 'decision' to which the act applies, or 'conduct' for the purpose of making a decision to which the act applies.