Brett Cattle Company Pty Ltd v Minister for Agriculture

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
JudgeRARES J
Judgment Date02 June 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] FCA 732
CourtFederal Court
Date02 June 2020
Brett Cattle Company Pty Ltd v Minister for Agriculture [2020] FCA 732

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA


Brett Cattle Company Pty Ltd v Minister for Agriculture [2020] FCA 732


File number:

NSD 1102 of 2014



Judge:

RARES J



Date of judgment:

2 June 2020



Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — validity of delegated legislation — test for validity — representative proceeding under Pt IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) — livestock export industry — where public affairs broadcast revealed inhumane treatment of Australian cattle exported to Indonesian abattoirs — where broadcast resulted in public outcry and political pressure on Government — where the Minister made two control orders under s 7 of the Export Control Act 1982 (Cth) in short succession — where second control order prohibited the export of all livestock from Australia to the Republic of Indonesia for a period of 6 months — where first control order did, but second control order did not, provide power to grant exceptions — where purpose of second control order was to enable Australian Government to develop a regulatory and compliance regime to address concerns regarding slaughter of livestock in Indonesian abattoirs — where various exporters were already capable of ensuring livestock exported to the Republic of Indonesia would remain within a closed loop system and not be subject to inhumane conditions up to the time of slaughter — whether second control order was valid exercise of Minister’s power under s 7 of the Export Control Act — whether second control order invalid on basis of unreasonableness — application of proportionality tool of analysis to evaluate validity of delegated legislation — whether second control order was suitable, necessary and appropriate and adapted to achieve a legitimate end within power conferred on Minister by s 7 of the Export Control Act — second control order was unreasonable, capricious, unnecessary and inadequate in its balance — second control order invalid


TORTS — misfeasance in public office — whether Minister committed tort of misfeasance in public office by making second control order — elements of tort — untargeted malice — where Minister did not receive or seek advice as to legality of second control order — where Minister received Departmental and general legal advice regarding worldwide ban on livestock exports but imposed ban only on exports to Republic of Indonesia — where Minister sought legal advice as to liability for compensation if he made an order — whether Minister reckless as to his power to make second control order under the Export Control Act when he took risk as to its validity without obtaining legal advice as to form of order he made


TORTS — misfeasance in public office — whether Minister committed tort of misfeasance in public office by making second control order — elements of tort — untargeted malice — whether necessary that tortfeasor recklessly indifferent to, or knew of, harm that would result from action or whether sufficient that harm to persons affected reasonably foreseeable — where Minister timed second control order to prevent particular shipment of cattle leaving Australia — where Minister knew, or was reckless as to whether, making second control order would result in harm to industry participants –– Minister committed the tort of misfeasance in public office by making second control order


DAMAGES — compensatory damages — where second control order caused significant distortion in livestock export market — where two alternative hypothetical scenarios pleaded — whether Minister would have made different control order, if exercising power validly —where Minister did not give evidence and his actions in making second control order made quantification of damages difficult — where alternative control order would have provided power to grant exceptions to a general prohibition on livestock exports to Indonesia — where applicant suffered loss of a commercial opportunity — quantification of damages


EVIDENCE — where Minister did not give evidence — no direct evidence of Minister’s state of mind or of what he would have done had he exercised his power validly — where impugned decision made after Cabinet meeting — where Minister put no documents before Cabinet — whether inference open that any evidence the Minister would have given would not have assisted the respondents



Legislation:

Australian Meat and Live-Stock Industry Act 1997 (Cth), ss 3, 4, 10, 17

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 140

Export Control Act 1982 (Cth), ss 3, 7, 25

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), Part IVA

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B

Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (Cth), ss 4, 17, 26, 38, 42 Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Export of Live-stock to the Republic of Indonesia) Order 2011

Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Export of Live-stock to the Republic of Indonesia) Order 2011 (No2)

Export Control (Export of Live-stock to the Republic of Indonesia) Order 2011

Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982, r 3

Export Control (Protection of Animal Welfare) Order 2011

Export Control Repeal Order 2011



Cases cited:

Attorney-General (SA) v Adelaide Corporation (2013) 249 CLR 1

Armory v Delamirie (1722) 1 Stra 505; 93 ER 664

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223

Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Hellicar (2012) 247 CLR 345

Avon Downs Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) 78 CLR 353

Banco de Portugal v Waterloo & Sons Ltd [1932] AC 452

Banditt v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 262

Betfair Pty Ltd v Western Australia (2008) 234 CLR 418

Brunswick Corporation v Stewart (1941) 65 CLR 88

Commercial Union Assurance Co of Australia Ltd v Ferrcom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389

Commissioner of Metropolitan Police v Caldwell [1982] AC 341

Commonwealth v Fernando (2012) 200 FCR 1

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Information, Postal Plumbing and Allied Services Union v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2007) 162 FCR 466

Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1981) 147 CLR 297

Cornwall v Rowan (2004) 90 SASR 269

Coulter v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 350

Dunlop v Woollahra Municipal Council [1982] AC 158

Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers Union (2004) 221 CLR 309

English and Scottish Mercantile Investment Co Ltd v Brunton [1892] 2 QB 700

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Futuris Corporation Ltd (2008) 237 CLR 146

Ferrier v Wilson (1906) 4 CLR 785

Garrett v Attorney-General [1997] 2 NZLR 332

Graham v Minister for Immigration (2017) 263 CLR 1

Houghton v Immer (No 155) Pty Ltd (1997) 44 NSWLR 46

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

Jones v Metropolitan Meat Industry Board (1925) 37 CLR 252

Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 511

Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361

Lamason v Australian Fisheries Management Authority [2009] FCA 245

LJP Investments Pty Ltd v Howard Chia Investments Pty Ltd (1990) 24 NSWLR 499

McCloy v New...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
7 cases
  • Martin v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (No 11)
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 16 November 2020
    ...Pty Ltd [2020] HCA 27 Bhagat v Global Custodians Ltd and Ors [2000] NSWSC 321 Brett Cattle Company Pty Ltd v Minister for Agriculture [2020] FCA 732 Bride v Shire of Katanning [2016] FCA 65 Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; 50 CLR 336 Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banki......
  • DBP16 v Minister for Home Affairs
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 9 June 2020
    ...Affairs [2020] FCA 706 BQQ15 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 218 Brett Cattle Company Pty Ltd v Minister for Agriculture [2020] FCA 732 Bruce v Cole (1998) NSWLR 163 Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 456; (1993) 43 FCR 280 Comcare v Banerji [2019] HCA......
  • Hillis v Minister for Home Affairs
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 3 August 2021
    ...Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2020) 277 FCR 420; [2020] FCAFC 94 Brett Cattle Company Pty Ltd v Minister for Agriculture (2020) 274 FCR 337; [2020] FCA 732 CQG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 253 FCR 496; [2016] FCAFC 146 Minister for Home Affairs v O......
  • Plaintiff M83A/2019 v Morrison (No 2)
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 21 August 2020
    ...WASC 281; 33 WAR 82 Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson [1991] FCA 839; 105 ALR 456 Brett Cattle Company Pty Ltd v Minister for Agriculture [2020] FCA 732 Commonwealth v Fernando [2012] FCAFC 18; 200 FCR 1 Emerald Construction Co Ltd v Lowthian [1966] 1 WLR 691 FRM17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2......
  • Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
2 books & journal articles
  • Fundamental Rights and Necessary Implication
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 51-1, March 2023
    • 1 March 2023
    ...the outset and informs it throughout in a manner which cleaves to the198. See Brett Cattle Company Pty Ltd v Minister for Agriculture (2020) 274 FCR 337, 407–14 [285]–[310] where Rares Jused structured proportionality in the context of determining the validity of secondary legislation which......
  • Distancing From Accountability? Governments’ Use of Soft Law in the COVID-19 Pandemic
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 50-1, March 2022
    • 1 March 2022
    ...also signif‌iedsuch a shift through its use of structured proportionality in Brett Cattle Company Pty Ltd v Minister for Agriculture(2020) 274 FCR 337, 411 [300] (Rares J).16 Federal Law Review incomprehensible statutes in Australia).124Schedule 1, s 357–60 makes such rulings bindingon the ......