|Michigan v Environmental Protection Agency (Supreme Court of the United States) - administrative law - EPA erred in deeming cost irrelevant to decision to regulate power plants - judgment of Court of Appeals for D. C. Circuit reversed
|Templeton v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (FCAFC) - corporations - fixing of receivers’ remuneration - appeal upheld in part - application for review remitted
|Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Sibai (FCA) - freezing order - taxation - variation of freezing order refused
|Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
|Michigan v Environmental Protection Agency
Supreme Court of the United States: Docket 14-26.
Roberts CJ, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor and Kagan JJ.
Administrative law - Clean Air Act directed Environmental Protection Agency to regulate emissions from power plants if it concluded “regulation is appropriate and necessary” after studying hazards to public health posed by emissions - EPA found power-plant regulation appropriate and necessary and refused to consider cost when making decision - Agency estimated cost of regulations would be $9.6 billion a year but quantifiable benefits $4 to $6 million a year - petitioners sought review - D. C. Circuit upheld Agency’s refusal to consider costs - held (by majority): EPA erred when it deemed cost irrelevant to decision to regulate power plants - EPA must consider cost before deciding whether regulation appropriate and necessary - Court reversed judgment of Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit and remanded cases for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
|Templeton v Australian Securities and Investments Commission  FCAFC 137
Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
Besanko, Middleton & Beach JJ
Corporations - first and second appellants were joint and several receivers and managers of property of unregistered managed investment schemes - receivers challenged primary judge’s orders concerning review of fixing of receivers’ remuneration - ss425, 449E, 473, 504, 601EE & 1323 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - s35A Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) - rr14.21, 14.24 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) - held: Court not satisfied appropriate proportionality analysis was adopted - reduction made by primary judge not justified by delay referred to between pooling orders and application for directions for distribution- primary judge erred in making discount for inefficiency - appeal upheld in part - application for review remitted.
|Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Sibai  FCA 1035
Federal Court of Australia
Freezing order - taxation - applicant obtained freezing order and ancillary orders against respondent - respondent sought variation of freezing orders granting weekly amount for living expenses, initial amount and continuing funding for reasonable legal expenses, and amount for business expenses - respondent sought that source of funds be from sale of two properties - held: Court satisfied respondent had access to substantial funds overseas sufficient to meet current reasonable expenses - Court not satisfied respondent needed or should have access to proceeds of sale of properties to meet expenses -