Case Of Anapurna Corporation Pty Ltd Samples †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Case Of Anapurna Corporation Pty Ltd. Answer: Issue The legal issue which needs to be addressed in relation to the case study is that whether a judicial error has been made by Foreign Compensation Board (Board) with respect to determining the case of Anapurna Corporation Pty Ltd (AC) in relation to the Foreign Compensation (East Timor) Act 2004 (Cth) (FCA) Rule The FCA clearly provides that an organization can claim compensation with respect to a loss of property which is situated at the coast of East Timor on 4th June. A claim can be provided by the board if it is found by it that the company who seeks the claim is a company based in Australia. Any person who has an issue with respect to the decision provided by the board has the right to make an appeal before the federal court of Australia with respect to an error of law. The Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) provides that meaning to a provision of legislation has to be given by taking into account not only the textual meaning of the words but the meaning of the whole provisions, the purpose of the Act and the surrounding materials such as graphics and notes provided through the legislation. A judicial error or anerror of law takes place when an administrative agency is not able to interpret the provisions of a legislation appropriately in the light of its purpose. There have been various instances in Australia where the court has reversed the decision made by the administrative body due to the error oflaw through a judicial review such as the case of MinisterforImmigration and Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1. Application In the given situation it has been provided that AC is a company which is registered under the Australian Corporation Law. A license had been obtained by AC for prospecting oil at the coast of East Timor. All leases had been cancelled with respect to organizations operating in the region on 4th june 2004. The lease of AC was also cancelled as a result. The board rejected the claim made by AC stating that the company is not based in Australia as its headquarters are in India and has also not suffered physical property losses as required by the FCA. In the given situation as it has been provided that AC has been registered under the Australian corporation law it means that it also has a place of business which is situated in Australia. It has not been provided by the FCA that a companies which has its headquarters outside Australia are not eligible. The FCA only requires a company to be based in Australia which AC is as per the scenario. Thus AC is entitled to compensation, Moreover the FCA does not provide any evidence which suggest that it allows claim related to physical property losses as it only talks about property losses. In addition loss license can also be regarded as a property as it is an asset of the company and requires significant expenditure to be obtained. Conclusion The board has made a judicial error and AC is entitled to appeal against the decision in the federal court as per the FCA References Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1 Foreign Compensation (East Timor) Act 2004 (Cth) (FCA)