Bisley Investments Corporation Ltd & Anor v The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal & Anor [1982] FCA 58

Federal Court of Australia|1982-04-28|Before: Morling JJ, Morling J, Lockhart J

Administrative Law - Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 -

ownership and control of television and broadcasting stations and licences - applicants acquire shareholdings requiring Broadcasting Tribunal's approval pursuant to ss. 903, 92F of the Act - consideration of meaning of "control" in the context of "prescribed interests" under the Act - whether applicants bear any onus of proof - whether acquisition of "prescribed interest" prima facie contrary to public interest - whether - possibility of control of a company holding a licence a relevant field of inquiry - whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal'ts judgment included findings on material questions of fact or references to the evidence on which those findings were based - whether relevant to have regard to contraventions of

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1974 (Cth.) s. 43 (2) .

BISLEY INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED & ANOR. v. THE AUSTRALIAN

} NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )NO. G 139 OF 1981

ON APPEAL FROM ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION BETWEEN : BISLEY INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED First Applicant and LYTONA PTY. LIMITED Second Applicant

First Respondent and COUNTRY TELEVISION SERVICES LIMITED

ORDERS JUDGES MAKING ORDERS: LOCKHART, SHEPPARD & MORLING J. WHERE MADE: AT SYDNEY DATE OF ORDERS: 28 APRIL 1982

The matter be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for rehearing.

The second respondent, Country Television Services Limited pay the appellants' costs of the appeal.

NEW SOUTIT WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )NO. G 139 OF 1981

ON APPEAL FROM ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

Second Applicant THE AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

LOCKHART J.: This appeal involves consideration of the

labyrinthine and somewhat tortuous provisions of ss. 90-92KA

of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 ("the Act") which

relate to the ownership and control of broadcasting and

television stations and of commercial broadcasting and

A brief reference at this stage to some sections of the Act

Sections 90-92KA define the meaning of "control" of broadcasting and television stations and of licences. The sections

also attempt, by tracing controlling interests through chains of

shareholdings and series of companies, to defeat various schemes

devised and employed by people desirous of acquiring interests in a plurality of stations and anxious to avoid the provisions of the Act which limit the number of broadcasting and television stations that may

be controlled by any one person or persons in the one interest.

The particular sections of the Act most directly involved in this appeal are ss. 900 and 92F relating respectively to broadcasting and television licences. There are few differences between sections 30 to 90R dealing with broadcasting stations and sections 91 to 92KA relating to television stations; but those few differences are important and I shall refer later to one of them which is material to

Section 92F (s. 903 broadcasting licences ) deals with changes aun the ownership of shares in a company holding a licence and in a company holding a shareholding interest in such a company, as a result of which a person acquires a "prescribed interest" in a commercial

television licence or an interest in excess of a "prescribed interest".

Where a transaction takes place whereby a person becomes the

holder of a "prescribed interest" in a licence, he may apply to the Broadcasting Tribunal for approval of the transaction and it may grant

or refuse approval: s. 92F (1) and (2); s. 903 (1) and (2) in the

The expression "prescribed interest" is central to the

operation of ss. 90-92KA. A shareholding interest constituting more --- than 5% of the total paid-up share capital in a company holding a television licence is a "prescribed interest" (s. 91 (2) (e) ). 'The

percentage is 15% in the case of broadcasting licences (s. 90 (2) (c)).

The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal ("the Broadcasting

Tribunal") shall not refuse to grant approval of such a transaction

(a) it is of opinion that a contravention of s. 92 (s. 90 in the case of broadcasting licences), which in effect prohibits the holding of "prescribed

(b) ut considers it necessary to do so in order to maintain such ownership and control of the company holding the licence as in the opinion of the Broadcasting Tribunal "best accord with the public

The appeal is brought pursuant to s. 44 of the Administrative

Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 from a decision of the Administrative Appeals

Tribunal ("the Tribunal") which affirmed a decision of the Broadcasting

refusing approval of the acquisition by Bisley Investment Corporation Limited, the first applicant ("Bisley") of 20.37% of the issued capital of Country Television Services Limited, the second respondent ("Country Television") and of the proposed acquisition by Busley of a further 2.69%

approving the acquisition by Bisley of up to 15% of

With this background I turn now to the facts and the

Country Television is the licensee of commercial television

stations CBN-8 Central Tablelands area (Orange) and CWN-6 Central

Western Slopes (Dubbo) and the owner of all the issued share capital of

the license of commercial broadcasting station 2GZ Orange which in

turn holds all the issued share capital in the licensee of commercial

In or about 1935 a company called Country Broadcasting Services Limited obtained the licence to conduct radio station 2GZ at Orange. The shareholders were the Graziers' Association of New South Wales and other representatives of rural interests, especially those

associated with the areas served by the radio station.

When it was announced that television would be introduced _ into Australia, Country Broadcasting Services Limited caused Country Television to be incorporated for the purpose of applying for and holding, if successful, the licence for the commercial television

station proposed to be established in the Orange area. In due course

the licence was granted to Country Television to operate the station.

Associated with Country Broadcasting Services Limited in the application for that licence were various companies, all having close links with the areas to be served by the licence, including Email Limited which is the largest employer in Orange.

Upon the licence being granted, 1,695,196 shares of five shillings each were alloted ,of which 1,140,000 were held by Country Broadcasting Services Limited and the companies associated with it in the application for the licence; the remainder being alloted to the public, preference being given to residents of the area to be served by

All shares in the capital of Country Television have equal

With few exceptions, the directors of Country Television have always been associated with rural interests and, 1n many cases, with the particular areas served by Country Television's radio and television stations. There are at present seven directors, of whom

Although 50% of the shares in Country Television were initially held by persons residing in or otherwise associated with the area served by Country Television's radio and television stations, that percentage has now been reduced to 24%; although 1,064 persons residing in those areas are still shareholders and they represent 47.7%

Prior to the acquisition by Bisley of shares in Country Television, the issued share capital of Country Television comprised 2,787,664 ordinary stock units of 50 cents each full paid. No individual shareholder held shares in Country Television which constituted control of the company under s. 92B of the Act. There ware nine major shareholders, Email being the largest shareholder with 373,560 stock units or 13.4% of the issued capital. None of the other shareholders sought representation on the Board of Country Television or participated in its operations or affairs; so that the board of directors, having predominately rural and local interests, was able to give effect to policies which enabled Country Television to identify

itself with the relevant areas and to cater for the interests of the

Country Television has liquid assets in excess of $4,060,000 comprising;shares in listed public companies - $1.7 million, moneys on deposit - $1.5 million and industrial real estate - $750,000.00. These assets have been earmarked by the board for possible future expansion

Rene Rivkin, a graduate in law and a partner in the firm of stockbrokers, Rivkin & Co., together with other interests associated with that firm, control a company - Lytona Pty. Limited, the second applicant ("Lytona"). Their interests in Lytona were acquired for the purpose of enabling Lytona itself to acquire an interest in Bisley. About April 1979 Lytona acquired 45% of the issued share capital in Bisley, then known as Bisley Clothing Limited, a well established company manufacturing menswear. Following the acquisition of this 453 of Bisley's share capital, three representatives of Lytona, including Mr. Rivkin, were appointed to Bisley's Board of Directors.

As at 20 August 1°80 (the date on which Mr. Rivkin's statement was tendered to the Broadcasting Tribunal during a public inquiry to which I shall refer later) Lytona owned 37.5% of the issued share capital in Bisley. Lytona's only activity is its investment in

Since Lytona's unvolvement in Bisley, the latter's business

has diversified. It is not only a manufacturer of menswear but carries

on the business of "commodities, futures and moneymarket broking and

Mr. Rivkin said in his statement to the Broadcasting Tribunal that Bisley was interested in the "electronic media" because it believed that it would be a very strong growth area during the "80's

In January 1980 Mr. Rivkin became aware that a parcel of shares in Country Television was available for sale. On 4 January 1980 Bisley purchased 113,500 shares (pre-bonus) in Country Television. Thereafter Bisley continued to purchase shares in Country Television, so that as at 20 August 1980 it owned 757,144 shares, 20.3% of the ussued share capital in Country Television, of which 10,166 shares (.27%) were acquired after 20 May 1980. 470,983 of the 757,144 shares

were purchased from three major shareholders in Bisley.

By letter dated 28 May 1980, Bisley sought approval from the

Broadcasting Tribunal for the following transactions involving the

(a) the acquisition of 446,783 (16.03%) (pre~bonus)

(b) the transfer of 114,050 (4.09%) (pre-bonus) shares

Under the proposed arrangement, Bisley would hold 640,883 (22.99%) (pre-bonus) shares in the capital of Country Television and therefore would have a prescribed interest in the licences of stations oe

An undated application of Bisley and Lytona received by the

Broadcasting Tribunal on 13 August 1980 and subsequently amended by

telephone sought approval of the Broadcasting Tribunal for the

(a) the purchase by Bisley of 20.37% of the capital of

(b) the purchase by Bisley of a further 2.62% of the

At an extraordinary general meeting of stockholders of Country Television held on 21 July 1980 a recommendation to make a bonus issue of shares on the basis of 1 bonus share for each three stock units held on 1 August 1980 was approved. The new shares were

alloted on 15 August 1980 and converted to stock units.

Following that allotment, the issued capital of Country

Television became $1,858,443 comprising 3,716,886 fully paid ordinary

On the day of the extraordinary general meeting Mr. Rivkin met Sir Alvin Burton-Taylor, the chairman of directors of Country

Television, and other directors of that company. They discussed

Bisley's purchase of shares in Country Television. Mr. Rivkin said

that, in addition to the shares already acquired, it was not aunconceivable that "we" (Bisley) "would like to go to 30%". He told Sir Alvin that it would be "nice" if Bisley could have two directors on the board of Country Television. Sir Alvin replied that it was a matter for the Board and that he could not himself conceive of two directors, but "one maybe". In a later conversation that same day, Mr. Rivkin was informed that the Board of Country Television had met and was happy for "one of us" to join the Board at an appropriate time, and that at the Annual General Meeting the shareholders would be asked to increase the number of directors to eight, thus allowing Bisley to

The acquisition by Bisley of its shareholding in Country Television required the approval of the Broadcasting Tribunal pursuant to s. 903 of the Act as it constituted a "transaction" as a result of which Bisley became "the holder of shareholding interests" in Country Television "amounting to a prescribed interest in the licence" for

Both Bisley and Lytona required the approval of the

Broadcasting Tribunal pursuant to s. 92F of the Act in respect of their respective "prescribed interests" in the television licences of CBN

By press announcements published on 24 June 1980 the Broadcasting Tribunal invited comments from members of the public on

Bisley's applications for approval. The Broadcasting Tribunal received _-

eight submissions which in essence objected to a non-local shareholder gaining control of the television and broadcasting stations and expressed fears that the services provided by them to the local rural community

By notice dated 24 July 1980 the Broadcasting Tribunal gave notice that it intended to hold an Inquiry pursuant to ss. 90J and 92F

of the Act into the applications of Bisley with respect to the following

"(i) whether, as a result of the transactions, the applicant, or any other person, has or will have a prescribed interest in - _ (a) more than four commercial broadcasting stations in any one State or

(b) more than eight commercial broadcasting stations in Australia;

(ii) whether, as a result of the trans@ctions,the applicant, or any other person, has or will have a prescribed interest in each of three

changes in the ownership and control of the licensee (whether direct or indirect) that have occurred, or will occur, as a result of the transactions accord, or will accord,with the public interest;

(iv) the effect of the transactions on the commercial broadcasting services provided by commercial broadcasting stations 2GZ Orange and 2NZ Inverell, and

(v) the effect of the transactions on the - -- commercial television services provided - - - by CBN-8 Orange and CWN-6 Dubbo".

On 20 August 1980, the Vice-Chairman of the Broadcasting Tribunal, Mr. James Oswin, sitting as a Division of that Tribunal pursuant to s. 15¢ (1) of the Act, conducted 4n Inquiry at Orange into the applications. After the conclusion of the Inquiry the Broadcasting Tribunal (3 members including Mr. Oswin) considered the applications further and on 24 December 1980 delivered its decision and, by majority (Mr. Oswin and Mr. Moremon, Mr. Jones, the Chairman, dissenting) decided -

"1, To refuse to approve pursuant to s. 92F of the Act in so far as it affects Bisley Investment Corporation Limited and Lytona Pty. Limited and pursuant to s. 900 of the Act in so far as it affects Bisley Investment Corporation Limited the -- acquisition by Bisley Investment Corporation Limited of 20.37% and the proposed acquisition by that company of a further 2.62% of the issued ordinary capital in Country Television Services Limited.

To approve pursuant to s. 92F of the Act in so far as it affects Bisley Investment Corporation Limited and Lytona Pty. Limited the acquisition by Bisley Investment Corporation Limited of up to 15% of the issued ordinary capital in

To approve pursuant to s. 303 of the Act in so far as it affects Bisley Investment Corporation Limited the acquisition by Bisley Investment Corporation Limited of up to 15% of the issued ordinary capital in County Television Services Limited."

Bisley and Lytona then appealed to the Tribunal which decided

on 15 September 1980 to affirm the decision of the Broadcasting"

At the hearing before the Tribunal the material before the Broadcasting Tribunal when reaching its decision was tendered, apparently without objection. That material included submissions from various local people and viva voce evidence of Mr. Rivkin, Sir Alvin Burton-Taylor and Archdeacon Kempson ~ Anglican Rector of the Parish of

Other evidence before the Tribunal included the affidavits of Sir Alvin Burton-Taylor, Archdeacon Kempson and Mr. West - Member of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales for the Electoral District of Orange; further viva voce evidence of Sir Alvin Burton-Taylor and

The primary submission of the appellants was that the Tribunal erred in regarding as relevant for the purposes of s. 92F (4A)

(s. 903 (4A) as to broadcasting stations) provisions of the Act relating to statutory or deemed control. It was submitted that

statutory control is relevant solely to determine whether a person has

a "prescribed interest" in a licence and that the whole machinery of

the Act relating to "prescribed interests" exists readily to

ascertain if a person has contravened s. 92 (s.90C in the case of broadcasting stations) which limits the number of licences in which that person may have a "prescribed interest". The Act fastens on the acquisition of a "prescribed interest" as activating the provisions of

the Act (s.92F for television stations and s. 9303 for broadcasting ~~ stations) which require the approval of the Broadcasting Tribunal of transactions involving the transfer of shares; but it serves no other

purpose under s. 92F (or s. 907). The control referred to in s. 92F

(4A) (b) is said to be commercial control, not statutory or deemed

The appellants submitted that the Tribunal not only regarded statutory control as a relevant consideration under s. 92F GA)(s. 907 4A)); but assumed that the holding of a "prescribed interest" was prima facie contrary to the public interest; and that an onus lay upon the appellants to prove that it would best accord with the public interest that they acquire a"prescribed interest" in a commercial television licence. It was submitted by the appellants that the Tribunal fell anto further error by wrongly thinking that the "prescribed interest",

as to television licences, was the holding of a shareholding interest

exceeding 15% of the paid up share capital, not 5% as it is in fact.

It is necessary to examine the provisions of the Act dealing with ownership and control of television and broadcasting stations and

For almost 50 years Commonwealth law has limited the number of broadcasting stations which may be controlled by any one person or persons in the one interest. As long ago as 1935 the number of broadcasting licences which could be controlled by the one interest was

lamited by Commonwealth Regulation to eight (Statutory Rule No 120 of 1935

made under the Wireless Telegraph Act 1905). Since 1935 Commonweaith ---

legislation relating to this question has increased considerably. The

Act now contains elaborate and detailed provisions defining what is

meant by control: ss. 90-92KA (divisions 2 and 3 of Part IV).

The Act limits the total number of broadcasting and television licences which may be controlled by the one interest: 8 broadcasting and 2 television licences. The Act does not stop there. For example, it prohibits the holding of prescribed interests in more than four broadcasting licences in any one State, more than four metropolitan broadcasting licences in Australia and more than one

metropolitan broadcasting licence in any one State (s. 90C (1) ).

The Act forbids the holding of prescribed interests in two television licences in the same State capital and two television

The Act generally speaks of deemed control rather than actual control. The two concepts are different and it 1s important to keep this distinction in mind. The definition of "prescribed interest" is

common to many of the provisions relating to ownership and control and

links those provisions to s. 92 (broadcasting licences s. S90F) which prohibits the holding of "prescribed interests" in more than a

Section 91 (2) (broadcasting licences s. 90 (2) ) states five

tests for determining whether a person has a "prescribed interest".

Two of these tests depend upon control of the licence itself (being the holder of the licence or being in a position to exercise control, e1ther directly or indirectly, of the licence). Section 92A (broadcasting licences s. 90D) defines "control of a licence" in terms of being the licence holder; being in a position to exercise control

of the company that holds the licence; or being in a position to exercise control of the operations conducted under the licence or of the management of the station or of the selection or provision of

"Control of a company" is given an extended meaning by s. 92B

(broadcasting licences s. 90E). A person 1s deemed to be in a position

(a) control of a company, (b) of any votes, in respect of another company, of

if he is in a position to exercise control of more than 15% of the voting power in the company or has "shareholding interests" in a

company including shareholding interests exceeding in amount 15% of the

total of the amounts paid on all shares in the company.

A person has a "shareholding interest" in a company if he is beneficially entitled, to or to an interest in, shares in the company ---

provided the value of the shares is equal to the amount paid up on the

The three other tests for the existence of a "prescribed interest" in s. 91 (2) depend on the person being in a position to exercise control of more than 5% of the voting power of the company; or the person being the holder of interests in the company holding the licence exceeding in amount 5% of the total of the amounts of all the interests in that company that would exist if ss. 91A and 91B had not been enacted;or the person being the holder of shareholding interests in the company holding the licence exceeding in amount 5% of the total of

Section 91 (1) (s. 90 (1) as to broadcasting stations) defines "control" as including "control as a result of, or by means of, trusts, agreements, arrangements, understandings and practices, whether

or not having legal or equitable force and whether or not based on

Shareholding interests may be traced down the line through a

series of companies to a company which is the licensee. It is by means of these tracing provisions (ss. 91A television and 90B broadcasting) that a company which does not hold shares in a company holding a licence may nevertheless be deemed to have a shareholding interest in

Section 92C (broadcasting stations 90F) limits the number~ of a

directorships of "television" companies which a person may hold.

Section 92D (broadcasting stations 90G) limits non-resident ownership

The Act deems a person to be in a position to exercise control of a television licence or of the company holding the licence if, for example, he is beneficially entitled to more than 5% of the paid-up shares in the company holding the licence (control of the licence) or 1s in a position to exercise control of more than 15% of the voting power of a company or has shareholding interests in a

company exceeding 15% of the total of the paid-up share capital of the

company (control of the company and therefore the licence) - ss. 92B

and 92A. Similarly, in the case of broadcasting licences, except the

With a percentage as low in some cases as 5%, it is plain

that many people will be deemed to be in a position to exercise control

This suggests that the draftsman of the Act intended to

cast a very wide net and include all cases of actual control as well as the larger class of potential controllers. The following passage from

the judgment of Kitto J. in The Herald and Weekly Times Limited v. The

Commonwealth (1966) 115 C.L.R. 418 and p. 436-437 is in point:-

"...the offence provisions are setting up a barrier against, not indeed the probability, but the possibility that a person who may be able, by reason of any of a number of legal or business

relationships, to influence the exercise of the rights conferred by one television licence may be able, by reason of such a relationship, to influence the exercise of the rights conferred by another television licence".

His Honour said that each of these relationships gave rise to

"...a situation which according to ordinary experience

may, in some cases at least, support an endeavour to affect the control or management of a television station or its operation under its licence. And, as everyone knows, even the faintest of volces may sometimes carry the day."

The policy of the Act is to secure freedom of competition and diversity of control among the important national services of television and broadcasting. Hence, the prohibition on the control by

any one person or persons in the one interest of more than a specified

Human ingenuity being what it is, the Act contains complex provisions to defeat schemes designed to circumvent these prohibitions by interlocking companies and arrangements of various descriptions.

Once a person acquires a prescribed interest in a licence (even a

shareholder holding as little as 5% of the paid up capital in the

company holding the television licence) the Act treats him as being @

potential controller of the licence or of the company that holds it. It is not entirely clear why Parliament chose a shareholding of 15% in the case of broadcasting licences and 5% for television licences. Probably it was thought that radio stations are more often owned by local family interests and that their share capital generally is more closely held The Act selects the Broadcasting Tribunal as the appropriate body to determine whether a person should hold more than a prescribed interest: s. 92F (broadcasting stations s. 903).

Where a transaction takes place whereby a person becomes the holder of prescribed interest in the licence, he may apply to the Broadcasting Tribunal for approval of the transaction in so far as it affects him; and the Broadcasting Tribunal may grant or refuse approval (s. 92F (1} and (2) ) (broadcasting stations s. 90J (1) and (2) ).

Sub-sections (4) and (4A) of s. 92F (sub-ss. (4) and (4A) of s. 9003 in the case of broadcasting stations) provide:-

are determined by the Tribunal to be relevant to the application of this sub-section and sub-section (4A) in relation to the transaction.

(4A) The Tribunal shall not refuse to grant approval under this section, and shall not give a notice under sub-section (3), unless the Tribunal -

(a) is of the opinion that the transaction has resulted or would result ina contravention by the person concerned of section 92; or

(b) considers it necessary to do so in order to maintain such ownership and control, whether direct or indirect , of the company holding the licence as, in the opinion of the Tribunal, best accord with the public interest."

The definition of "control" in s. 91 (1) (broadcasting s. 90

(1) } applies not only to deemed or statutory control but also to

the control of which sub-s. (4A) speaks. The definition in s. 91

(1) (and s. 90 (1) ) is an inclusive definition. It is necessary to first inquire as to the ordinary meaning of the word and then apply the statutory extensions mentioned in this section. So understood, control in sub-s. (4A) means control in the sense of control according to its ordinary meaning whether it results from or by means of legally binding

agreements or informal arrangements or understandings or practices.

But this is not to say that deemed or statutory control is irrelevant for the purposes of sub-s. (4A). It is the acquisition of a "prescribed interest" that enlivens the Broadcasting Tribunal's jurisdiction to approve or refuse to approve the transaction. The Broadcasting Tribunal must approach its task on the footing that Parliament regards the acquisition of a "prescribed interest" (as low as 5% in the case of the television station) as conferring a potentiality for subsequent control. But the Broadcasting Tribunal should not approach its task on an assumption that a "prescribed interest" 1s inimical to the public interest. To do so would be a

misconception of the role played under the Act by the acquisition of a

"prescribed interest". Also it would be contrary to the requirements of sub-s. (4A). It is only if the Broadcasting Tribunal considers it necessary to refuse approval on the grounds specified in the sub-section that it may do so. If, for example, the Broadcasting Tribunal is left in doubt whether it is necessary to refuse approval, it must grant approval. This is inconsistent with any assumption that

a "prescribed interest" is against the public interest.

It is also erroneous to talk of the appellants as bearing any

onus of proof for the purposes of sub-s. (4A). The concept of onus of proof has its place primarily in civil and criminal proceedings before Courts. It may apply to proceedings before Administrative Tribunals in some cases, but not relevantly to sub-s. (4A). The Broadcasting Tribunal 1s required to hold an inquiry into such matters as are determined by it to be relevant to the application of sub-ss. (4) and (4A) in relation to the transaction; and it shall not refuse to grant approval unless it considers it necessary to do so in order to maintain the ownership and control mentioned in sub~s. (4A) (b). Doubtless the person seeking approval for the transaction will produce material before the Broadcasting Tribunal so that a decision can be made by it; but it does not follow that any onus of proof lies upon him in the sense of either an ultimate onus or an evidentiary onus.

I agree with the following passage from the decision of

the Tribunal (Morling J.) in Control Investments Pty. Limited v. The

Australian Labor Party, decision given 17 December 1981 at p. 215-6:-

"An inquiry held in pursuance of that duty is different in character from a case where one party seeks to prove a case against another. In such a case oneor other of the parties usually bears an onus of proof, depending upon the particular issues in the case.

the argument, pressed by the applicants, that the effect of s. 92F (4A) is to require the Tribunal to approve an application unless it is satisfied of one or other of the matters referred to in s. 92F

(4A) (a) or (b). If, having made inquiry, the Tribunal is left in doubt whether it should come to the opinion referred to in s. 92 (4A) (a), or whether it is necessary to refuse the application in order

to maintain the ownership and control referred to in s. 92F (4A) (b), then it 1s under an obligation not to refuse approval."

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (349 paragraphs)

Cited By (9)