Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 23 Making of orders and issue of writs</title>
<title id="l2">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l3">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 86A Purpose of mediation</title>
<title id="l4">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 86B Referral of matters for mediation</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 226">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 226">prohibition from leaving australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 226">whether discharge of tax liability must be impeded by departure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 226">meaning of "arrangements satisfactory to the commissioner for the tax liability to be wholly discharged" in s.14s(1) of the taxation administration act 1953</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 226">whether includes filing of a debtor's petition.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">grounds on which further appellate court will interfere with intermediate court's exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">commissioner of taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">to require person to attend to give evidence and produce documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">notices to attend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">delegation of commissioner's power to subordinate officer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">facsimile of delegate's signature affixed to notice without his knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">signatory of notice authorized so to sign</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">validity of notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth),s 264(1)+.   + section 264(1) of the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth) provides: taxpayer or not, including any officer employed in or in connexion with any department of a government or by any public authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">(a) to furnish him with such information as he may require; and (b) to attend and give evidence before him or before any officer authorized by him in that behalf concerning his or any other person's income or assessment, and may require him to produce all books, documents and other papers whatever in his custody or under his control relating thereto."  legal practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">solicitors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">duty of confidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">income tax investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">notice to attend to give evidence and produce documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">whether solicitor obliged to comply with notice without client's consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">whether legal privilege confined to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings.  income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">commissioner of taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">to have full and free access to all buildings, places, books, documents and other papers for purposes of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">vouchers in locked room at bank</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">key in unlocked drawer in manager's office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.23">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">refusal to unlock door</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.24">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">whether bank under duty to locate or deliver particular documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.25">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth),s. 263.*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 26">crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 26">governor in council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 26">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 26">licence to conduct workers' compensation insurance business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 26">renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 26">approval of governor in council required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 26">refusal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 26">no opportunity afforded to company to be heard before minister's recommendation made to governor in council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 26">whether governor in council bound by rules of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 26">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 26">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 26">whether governor in council a tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1982] HCA 26">order in council refusing renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[1982] HCA 26">effect on order of failure to afford hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[1982] HCA 26">administrative law act 1978 (vict.), ss. 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 (1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[1982] HCA 26">workers compensation act 1958 (vict.), ss. 72, 73</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[1982] HCA 26">workers compensation regulations 1975 (vict.), regs. 201, 202.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 43">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 43">departure prohibition order made under s 72d of child support (registration and collection) act 1988 (cth) by child support registrar</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 43">whether order valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 43">whether registrar obliged to afford procedural fairness by giving an opportunity to be heard where registrar had received a "tip off" from an anonymous telephone caller that the person was about to leave australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 43">whether failure by registrar to notify person that order had been made, as registrar was required to do by s 72g of act, was a failure to accord procedural fairness that rendered order invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 43">whether registrar failed to give such notice. held: in each case, no.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 43">whether pt va of child support (registration and collection) act 1988 (cth) invalid as conferring the judicial power of the commonwealth on child support registrar</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 43">child support registrar was empowered to make departure prohibition order prohibiting a person from departing from australia for a foreign country if, inter alia , the person had a child support liability and had not made arrangements satisfactory to the registrar for the child support liability to be wholly discharged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 43">consideration of factors indicative of "judicial power". held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2009] AATA 626">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2009] AATA 626">departure prohibition order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2009] AATA 626">departure authorisation certificate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2009] AATA 626">whether unable to give security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2009] AATA 626">meaning of "unable".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1590">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1590">appeal against making of a departure prohibition order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1590">whether the person was subject to a taxation liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1590">whether the commissioner held the belief on reasonable grounds that it was desirable to make a departure prohibition order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1590">where neither an objection nor the australian taxation office receivables policy are relevant to existence of a taxation liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1590">where different taxation liability to that considered by delegate's authorised officer inserted into departure prohibition order by an unauthorised subordinates</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1590">where no reasonable grounds for the requisite belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1590">departure prohibition order set aside  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1590">decisions of delegates by authorised officers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1590">carltona principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 1590">where different taxation liability to that considered by delegate's authorised officer inserted into departure prohibition order by an unauthorised subordinates</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 1590">departure prohibition order set aside</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 43" id="cs0">It may be that the present submission is intended to distinguish between a purpose of preventing a particular imminent departure from Australia and a more general prevention of any departure from Australia. In my view even the latter is within para (b) of s 72D(1). That is to say, that paragraph is satisfied if the Registrar believes on reasonable grounds that it is "desirable" to make the DPO for the purpose of "ensuring" (a strong word: see Troughton v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 18 ; (2008) 166 FCR 9 at [20] ) that the person does not depart at any time in the future from Australia for any foreign country without first discharging the child support liability or making arrangements satisfactory to the Registrar for its discharge. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] AATA 626" id="cs1">Counsel for Mr Lui also relied on observations by Jessup J in Troughton v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 18 ; (2008) 166 FCR 9 at [24] to support the construction offered. Jessup J there said:
 "The next provision to which reference should be made is s 14U. Here the legislature has turned its mind to the kind of exceptional circumstances that might arise, in which the non-achievement of the purpose referred to in s 14S(1) might be tolerated.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1590" id="cs2">92 Having reflected on the language employed in s 14S(1)(b) of the TAA and on what was said of that provision by Young J in Dalco v Commissioner of Taxation (1987) 19 ATR 443 at 447-448 (later endorsed by Einfeld J in Edelsten v Commissioner of Taxation (1989) 85 ALR 226 at 230) and by Pincus J (as his Honour then was) in Skase v Commissioner of Taxation [1991] FCA 226 ; (1991) 32 FCR 206 , at 209 and 211, Jessup J in Troughton v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 18 ; (2008) 166 FCR 9 at 17, [22] --- [23] recently offered the following summary of how that provision falls to be construed:

 22 It follows that s 14S(1)(b) should be read not literally, but as though it referred to a belief by the Commissioner (on reasonable grounds) that it was desirable that the person not leave Australia without discharging the tax liability or making the arrangements there referred to. Thus it is not to be taken as a given that, in every case, the departure of the person from Australia will make it unlikely, or at least less likely, that the tax liability will be discharged, or that the ability of the Commissioner to recover the tax will be impaired. These are things which must be considered by the Commissioner in every case. The purpose of s 14S, and accordingly a central purpose of Part IVA , is not the prevention of persons (owing tax) from leaving Australia simpliciter: it is the prevention of such persons from leaving Australia where, in the Commissioner's belief reasonably arrived at, the recovery of tax would or might thereby be impaired. 23 In that result, at least so far as revealed by s 14S, the general scope and objects of Part IVA of the Administration Act are as contended for by both sides in the present case. As contended for by the Commissioner, they are the protection of the revenue. As contended for by the applicant, they are the prevention of persons (owing tax) from leaving Australia where that would affect the recoverability thereof. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l2">FOREIGN JUDGMENTS ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l3">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l4">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 264 Commissioner may require information and evidence</title>
<title id="l5">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 353 Control tracing interest in a company</title>
<title id="l6">INTERNATIONAL TAX AGREEMENTS ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 476 Jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court</title>
<title id="l9">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l10">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14R Departure from Australia of certain tax debtors prohibited</title>
<title id="l11">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14S Departure prohibition orders</title>
<title id="l12">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14T Revocation and variation of departure prohibition orders</title>
<title id="l13">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14U Departure authorisation certificates</title>
<title id="l14">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14V Appeals to courts against making of departure prohibition orders</title>
<title id="l15">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14Y Applications for review of certain decisions</title>
<title id="l16">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l17">COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT 1990 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FMCA 728">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FMCA 728">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FMCA 728">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FMCA 728">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FMCA 728">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1602">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1602">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1602">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1602">whether tribunal correctly applied the chan test by finding that the incidence of rape and sexual abuse by military officers of female draftees did not occur on a sufficient scale to constitute persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1602">whether tribunal erred in law by not asking itself the right question</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1602">whether rape and sexual abuse of female draftees by military officers was "systematic"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1602">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1602">ss 91r(1)(b) and (1)(c) of the migration act 1958 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 28">re refugee review tribunal; ex parte h  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 28">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 28">reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 28">affirmation by refugee review tribunal of decision to refuse applications for protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 28">credibility in issue before tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 28">constant interruptions of and challenges to evidence of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 28">whether vigorous testing of evidence might lead a fair-minded lay person to apprehend bias on the part of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 28">appropriate modification of test for apprehended bias when applied to administrative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 28">whether relief under s 75(v) of the constitution should be refused on discretionary grounds.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">re minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte epeabaka  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">affirmation by refugee review tribunal of decision to refuse application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">public statements made by tribunal member on personal internet home page about truthfulness of applicants for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">whether pt 7 of migration act 1958 (cth) constitutes a code excluding the common law rules of natural justice and in particular the ostensible bias rule.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">whether a reasonable party or member of the public might apprehend that decision of tribunal member was affected by a prejudiced mind</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">whether ostensible bias may be inferred from statements made after a decision.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 55">minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v haji ibrahim  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 55">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 55">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 55">clan-based conflict in somalia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 55">whether persecution on convention grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 55">use of terms "civil war", "civil conflict" and "systematic persecution"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 55">whether convention definition permits or requires examination of the "motivation" for or "objects of" a "civil war" or "civil conflict" or demonstration of a "differential operation" upon an applicant's social group.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 39">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 39">application to review decision of the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 39">whether tribunal failed to disclose to the applicant issues that arose on the application for review or failed to ask the correct question.  migration act 1958 , ss.91r , 425  applicant a and another v minister for immigration and ethnic affairs and another (1997) 190 clr 225  attorney-general for the state of new south wales v quin (1990) 170 clr</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1999">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1999">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1999">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1999">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1999">application for review of rrt decision affirming a decision of a delegate of the minister refusing to grant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1999">applicant is a child</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1999">china's "one child" policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1999">no reviewable error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 155">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 155">infringement of copyright in films and related artwork</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 155">unauthorised copying and sale of "adult" films</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 155">claim for additional damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 155">whether respondents took adequate steps to avoid infringement considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 155">whether state law prohibiting the sale of adult films in new south wales impacts upon the availability of damages considered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 407">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 407">review of decision of rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 407">whether the tribunal failed to correctly apply the law in relation to "persecution" for the purposes of the convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 407">"systemic" persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 407">whether the tribunal correctly applied the law in relation to state protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 407">whether the tribunal failed to disclose adverse information to the applicants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 407">whether the tribunal failed to deal with a material claim of the applicants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2006] FMCA 407">whether discriminatory conduct must be motivated by an intent to harm.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 39" id="cs0">The applicant attended a Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal as originally constituted (the first Tribunal) affirmed the decision under review by decision handed down on 25 July 2003. That decision was quashed by order of Bennett J on appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court (see SZDTM v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 188). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1999" id="cs1">He submitted that the harm found likely to be suffered by the applicant is based on the specific social attributes or characteristics of the applicant that is by reason of his being an illegitimate child. The Tribunal acknowledged as much in its findings and reasons and it is irrelevant whether the reason for the action, such as bullying or teasing, is disapproval or resentment of that particular characteristic. Counsel referred the Court to the decision of SZDTN v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [6] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 155" id="cs2">

 I certify that the preceding one hundred and seventy-six (176) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Driver FM

 Associate:

Date: 24 August 2007

 [1] Fraserside Holdings  Anor v Venus Adult Shops Pty Ltd  Ors [2005] FMCA 997
 [2] This defence was also raised in Fraserside . The defence was rejected by Raphael FM. His decision was appealed to the Federal Court, which allowed the appeal in part: Venus Adult Shops Pty Ltd v Fraserside Holdings Ltd [2006] FCA 188. [3] exhibit A1
 [4] exhibit R1
 [5] not Mr Corrick
 [6] This would indicate a size of approximately 40 square metres. [7] 50 pages, including annexures
 [8] Paragraph references are to the paragraphs in the submissions.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 407" id="cs3">The situation in this case is not that as described by Bennett J in SZDTM v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 188 at [37] where her Honour said:

 "[37] The racial discrimination which the Tribunal described as "criminal offences" refers to the anti-Chinese riots and acts committed against the Chinese community in Indonesia by state and non-state elements.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 36 Protection visas</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91R Persecution</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 40">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 40">oppression claim brought by member of not-for-profit company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 40">plaintiff claimed that objectives of the company were not being pursued and that company conducted its affairs in the interests of a sub-set of members to the exclusion of others</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 40">where winding-up claim by plaintiff not pursued at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 40">whether abandoned winding-up claim abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 40">order sought that an accountant be appointed to prepare a report for the members of the defendant as to its affairs.   held: no abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 40">conduct of defendant's affairs did not constitute oppression within the meaning of s 233 of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2009] FCA 40">conduct of concern to the plaintiff had been ameliorated by the time of the final hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2009] FCA 40">the relief sought by plaintiff not appropriate in circumstances.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">australian broadcasting corporation v lenah game meats pty ltd  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">equitable remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">principles to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">need for plaintiff to show a serious question to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">defence that plaintiff has no equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">nature of discretion to grant interlocutory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">relevance of implied freedom of political communication under the constitution .  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">power of supreme court to grant interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">whether s 11(12) of supreme court civil procedure act 1932 (tas) alters basis on which the supreme court has power to grant an interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">purpose for which power exists to grant an interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">meaning of "just and convenient".  torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">privacy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">whether australian law recognises a tort of invasion of privacy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">whether right to privacy attaches to corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">relevance of implied freedom of political communication under the constitution to the tort of privacy.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">interpretation of constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">implications from constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">implied freedom of communication concerning government and political matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">whether law providing for interlocutory injunction against broadcaster infringes implied freedom</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">whether injunction if granted would infringe freedom</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">relevance of implied freedom to grant of injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.23">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">whether properly or at all taken into account.  trespass to land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.24">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">trespasser illegally made clandestine film of activities and gave it to a broadcaster</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.25">cited from="[2001] HCA 63">whether owner has right to restrain publication of film by broadcaster.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 64">sanders v snell  tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 64">inducement of breach of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 64">whether appellant intended to procure breach or caused breach of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 64">uncommunicated subjective desire that contract would be breached not sufficient to establish tort.  tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 64">interference with economic interests by unlawful means</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 64">not necessary to decide whether this tort recognised in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 64">failure to accord procedural fairness does not constitute "unlawful means".  tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 64">misfeasance in public office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 64">appellant directed statutory body to terminate respondent's employment contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 64">whether appellant was required to accord procedural fairness to respondent before issuing direction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 64">whether appellant knew or was reckless to the possibility that direction was beyond power.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 58">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 58">public law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 58">restraint of enforcement of allegedly unconstitutional statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 58">interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 58">principles.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">immigration and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">power of minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">principles of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">standing as australian citizen of infant daughter of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">intended deportation order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether notice required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">migration act 1958 (cth), ss. 6 , 6a, 7 , 18 .  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">order for deportation of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">review of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 5 , 13 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1397">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1397">s 47 northern territory national emergency response act 2007 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1397">whether the power of the commonwealth minister to give a notice under s 47 to compulsorily acquire prescribed areas is conditioned upon affording procedural fairness to the residents of the land the subject of the notice when they occupy parts of the land under tenancy agreements with the principal lessor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1397">whether the commonwealth minister had afforded procedural fairness in the circumstances  associations and clubs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1397">associations incorporated under associations act (nt)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1397">whether the associations will breach their constitutions, contractual duties owed to members and whether the executive committees will breach their fiduciary duties owed to members by entering into a transaction under which the land leased by the associations will be subleased to the commonwealth for a period of 40 years (the proposed subleases)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1397">whether execution of the proposed subleases is contrary to the interests of the associations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1397">question of a fair reading of the constitutions of the associations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1397">whether, upon a fair reading of their constitutions, it is an integral object of the associations that they continue to have direct control and management of particular lands leased by them in perpetuity, so that they may not enter into the proposed subleases  corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 1397">corporations incorporated under corporations (aboriginal and torres strait islander) act 2006 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 1397">whether the corporations will breach their rule books, contractual duties owed to members and whether the executive committees will breach their fiduciary duties owed to members by entering into a transaction under which the land leased by the corporations will be subleased to the commonwealth for a period of 40 years (the proposed subleases)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 1397">whether execution of the proposed subleases is contrary to the interests of the corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 1397">question of a fair reading of the rule books of the corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 1397">whether, upon a fair reading of their rule books, it is an integral object of the corporations that they continue to have direct control and management of particular lands leased by them in perpetuity, so that they may not enter into the proposed subleases   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 1397">representative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 1397">whether expedited proceedings would provide an efficient and effective means of dealing with the claims of group members</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 1397">whether it would be in the interests of justice to order that proceedings no longer continue as representative proceedings  landlord and tenant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">citing from="[2009] FCA 1397">tenancy agreements granted other than for specific fixed term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">citing from="[2009] FCA 1397">whether periodic tenancies</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1397" id="cs0">His Honour granted the interlocutory relief on 6 August 2009, pending the hearing of the trial, effectively preserving the status quo until this matter could be heard: see Shaw v Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2009] FCA 844. Whether the proceedings should continue as representative proceedings
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 16 Powers of the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court in respect of applications for order of review</title>
<title id="l2">ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l3">ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) ACT 1976 - SECT 20B Executive Director of Township Leasing</title>
<title id="l4">ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) ACT 1976 - SECT 20CA Executive Director to hold leases and subleases of community living areas, town camps and prescribed land on behalf of the Commonwealth</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 232 Grounds for Court order</title>
<title id="l7">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l9">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l10">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39 Federal jurisdiction of State Courts in other matters</title>
<title id="l11">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l12">LANDS ACQUISITION ACT 1989 </title>
<title id="l13">LANDS ACQUISITION ACT 1989 - SECT 47 Entry into possession by acquiring authority</title>
<title id="l14">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l15">NORTHERN TERRITORY NATIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACT 2007 </title>
<title id="l16">NORTHERN TERRITORY NATIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACT 2007 - SECT 47 Vesting rights, titles and interests in land in the Commonwealth</title>
<title id="l17">NORTHERN TERRITORY NATIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACT 2007 - SECT 50 Application of Commonwealth and Northern Territory laws</title>
<title id="l18">NORTHERN TERRITORY NATIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACT 2007 - SECT 51 Native Title Act</title>
<title id="l19">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">implied waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">issue waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">whereprivilege-holder acts inconsistently with the privilege by putting the contents of otherwise privileged documents in issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">commissioner of taxation identified bases for satisfaction and exercises of discretion as matters evidenced in these documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">test of waiver of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 122">taxation and revenue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 122">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 122">documents commissioner of taxation entitled to have access to under income tax assessment act 1936 (cth) s 263</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 122">privilege claimed practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 122">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 122">whether privilege can attach to documents prepared by third party at direction of principal and returned to principal to then give to solicitor for purpose of obtaining legal advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 122">difficulty in determining dominant purpose of principal in instructing third party to prepare documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">mann v carnell  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">loss of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">waiver by disclosure to third party.  australian capital territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">separation of powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">representative government</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">nature of relationship between the act legislative assembly and the act executive.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1979] FCA 33">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1979] FCA 33">discovery and inspection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1979] FCA 33">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1979] FCA 33">inspection by court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1979] FCA 33">principles applicable to consideration of claim of legal professional privilege discussed. the applicant objected to the production of certain documents listed in its affidavit of discovery on the ground of legal professional privilege. on the respondent's application for inspection,</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2010] WADC 76">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2010] WADC 76">inspection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2010] WADC 76">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2010] WADC 76">two purposes, neither dominant, both legal</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] WADC 76" id="cs0">47 The third member of the Court, Merkel J, agreed with Finn and Stone JJ (370 [52]). This aspect of the decision in Pratt (FC) was applied in Re: Southland Coal Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liq) [2006] NSWSC 899 ; (2006) 203 FLR 1 at 6; Quality Publications Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2009] FCA 1293 at [12] and Korean Air Lines Co Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (No 2) [2008] FCA 449 at [6] .</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 269">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 269">where the appellant's migration agent's registration had been cancelled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 269">whether any fraud by the agent established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 269">whether any obligation on the tribunal to inquire</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 269">appeal dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 2003">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 2003">review of a refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 2003">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 2003">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 2003">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1923">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1923">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1923">whether a tribunal hearing should have proceeded where a real doubt existed as to the ability of the applicant to comprehend what was being said</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1592">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1592">appeal from a decision of the federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1592">where the refugee review tribunal sent a letter to the appellant inviting comment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1592">where letter purportedly sent under s 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1592">where appellant's adviser attempted to send response to invitation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1592">whether failure by tribunal to follow up response amounts to jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1538">customs and excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1538">classification of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1538">shoe inserts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1538">whether the tribunal erred in classifying shoe inserts as 'orthopaedic appliances' for the purposes of the customs tariff act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1538">ordinary and natural meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1538">tribunal's entitlement to have recourse to common-sense in classifying the goods administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1538">s 43(2b) of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1538">tribunal's obligation to give reasons for its decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1538">whether the obligation requires the tribunal to give a subset of reasons why it accepts or rejects individual pieces of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">szbel v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">protection visa decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant claimed he feared persecution on basis of his conversion to christianity if returned to iran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">delegate of the first respondent refused to grant appellant protection visa because not satisfied of the genuineness of appellant's conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">review by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant invited by tribunal to give evidence relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant gave evidence addressed to the delegate's concern regarding the genuineness of his conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa on the basis that appellant's claims were not credible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether tribunal failed to notify the appellant adequately of the issues to which its reasoning processes were directed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether failure of tribunal to ask the appellant to address issues that it considered might be important amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 117">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 117">appeal from judgment of a federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 117">dismissal of application seeking judicial review of a decision of the refugee review tribunal refusing applications for protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 117">failure by refugee review tribunal to consider a document before it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 117">whether refugee review tribunal failed to afford the appellants procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 117">onus of proof in respect of a claim of breach of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 117">whether refugee review tribunal failed to have regard to relevant material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 117">not possible to say that error could not have affected the outcome.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 328">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 328">application for protection visa by chinese nationals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 328">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 328">the decision of the refugee review tribunal affected by apprehended bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 328">also lack of satisfaction reached by the refugee review tribunal not lawful, but arbitrary and capricious.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">applicant s v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">well-founded fear of persecution for reason of membership of particular social group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">particular social group identified as able-bodied young men from afghanistan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">whether member of a particular social group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">whether afghan society must perceive the particular social group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">whether well-founded fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">whether enmity or malignity necessary to establish persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">whether facts reveal law of general application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">whether implementation of law of general application can amount to persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">whether implementation of ad hoc policy can amount to persecution.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs v sglb  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">expert medical advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">psychological state of applicant assumed to be possible explanation for unsatisfactory evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether denial of procedural fairness by failing to order further psychological assessment of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether denial of procedural fairness by accepting that applicant suffered stress disorder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether denial of procedural fairness by acceptance of effects of disorder on applicant without expert medical advice.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">privative clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether putative errors of the refugee review tribunal fell within the operation of s 474 of the migration act 1958 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">re minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte applicant s154/2002  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">whether tribunal misled applicant into believing factual claim had been accepted as true</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">whether tribunal relied on evidence tendered earlier to disbelieve factual claim without giving applicant opportunity to demonstrate evidence was not inconsistent with factual claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">whether tribunal relied on belated disclosure of rape incident to disbelieve factual claim in circumstances where belated disclosure might have been explicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">whether subsequent hearing and provision of written submissions cured any earlier breach of requirements of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">inquisitorial hearing by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">whether failure by tribunal to afford procedural fairness amounting to jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">judge approached in private chambers by court counsellor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">absence of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">counsellor prospective expert witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">views expressed favouring one party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">reasonable apprehension that judge might not bring impartial mind to matter.  family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">status of court counsellor as officer of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">improper private approach by counsellor to judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family law act 1975 (cth), ss.37 , 62a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family law rules o.25, r.5.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">immigration and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">power of minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">principles of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">standing as australian citizen of infant daughter of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">intended deportation order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether notice required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.8">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">migration act 1958 (cth), ss. 6 , 6a, 7 , 18 .  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.9">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.10">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.11">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.12">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">order for deportation of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.13">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">review of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.14">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 5 , 13 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1267">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1267">unrepresented appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1267">difficulties encountered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1267">adverse findings as to credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1267">no appellable error  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1267">leave to raise new ground of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 1267">refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">meaning of the "right to reside" within s 36(3) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">appellant a citizen of czech republic of roma ethnicity and citizen of european union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">tribunal found appellant, as citizen of european union, had right to enter and reside in spain within the meaning of s 36(3) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">whether "right to reside" includes the right to participate in country's system of social welfare or a practical capacity to establish residence held : the right to enter and reside in s 36(3) does not include the right to receive social welfare</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">not a right to enter and reside comfortably in a country or entitlement to reside for any particular period migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.8">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">protection visas under s 36(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.9">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">whether finding that any period of unemployment that would be suffered by appellant in spain would be short lived not open to tribunal on the evidence held : tribunal's conclusion open to it on the evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.10">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">no jurisdictional error administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.11">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.12">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">whether tribunal failed to raise issues with appellant that had been depositive of the review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.13">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">appellant availed himself of the opportunity to advance materials and made submissions to support claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 380">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 380">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 380">whether translation errors at tribunal hearing such that denial of a fair hearing under s.425 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 380">whether conduct of migration agent amounted to third party fraud such that the tribunal was unable to discharge its statutory functions.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 202">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 202">inquisitorial function of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 202">primary responsibility of an appellant to advance submissions relevant to claims made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 202">findings of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 202">findings as to credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 202">no benefit of the doubt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 202">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 105">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 105">alleged failure to allow sufficient time to answer questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 105">alleged failure to allow adjournments of sufficient duration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 105">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 105">importance of understanding why information relevant to review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 105">onus of establishing ground of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1068">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1068">review of decision of rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1068">where applicant identifies translation error in matter which constituted a ground for tribunal's credibility finding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1068">whether decision in applicant p119/2002 constituted dicta followed by federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1068">whether szjqn was a decision that was clearly wrong</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1068">whether admitted error in translation was material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1068">whether other claims of "want of logic" or "lack of evidence" were sustainable.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 582">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 582">application to review decision of the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 582">whether tribunal failed to comply with s.425 of the migration act by not providing an interpreter for the primary applicant at the tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 582">whether tribunal failed to consider an integer of the applicant's claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 582">whether breach of s.424a.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1267" id="cs0">The primary responsibility of a claimant to present such evidence and to advance such submissions as are considered relevant to the claims being made has long been recognised and was referred to by Gummow and Hayne JJ in Abebe at 576 where it was said that it was:

 ... for the applicant to advance whatever evidence or argument she wishes to advance in support of her contention that she has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. The Tribunal must then decide whether that claim is made out.

" [I]t is for the applicant for a protection visa to establish the claims that are made ": SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 63 at [40] , [2006] HCA 63 ; 228 CLR 152 at 164. See also: SZJZS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 789 at [15] to [16] [2008] FCA 789 ; , 102 ALD 318 at 321 to 322; SZLPN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCA 202 at [13] to [14]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 97" id="cs1">140 Second, notwithstanding the fact that the Tribunal performs an inquisitorial function ( Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI [2009] HCA 39 at [18] , [2009] HCA 39 ; 259 ALR 429 at 434 per French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ), it remains the primary responsibility of a claimant to present such evidence and to advance such submissions as are considered relevant to the claims being made: Abebe v Commonwealth [1999] HCA 14 at [187] , [1999] HCA 14 ; 197 CLR 510 at 576. Gummow and Hayne JJ thus observed that it was:
 ... for the applicant to advance whatever evidence or argument she wishes to advance in support of her contention that she has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. The Tribunal must then decide whether that claim is made out. See also: SZJZS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 789 at [15] to [16] [2008] FCA 789 ; , 102 ALD 318 at 321 to 322. " [I]t is for the applicant for a protection visa to establish the claims that are made ": SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs , supra, at [40].</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 380" id="cs2">It was not disputed that the principles referred to in Appellant P119/2002 (which have been followed or cited with approval on numerous occasions: for example WALN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 131 ; SZJZE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1653 ; SZJZS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another (2008) 102 ALD 318 ; [2008] FCA 789 ; SZNCW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 818 ; SZHEW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 783 ; SZGSI and Another v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another (2009) 107 ALD 414 ; [2009] FCA 200) are applicable. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 202" id="cs3">Notwithstanding this inquisitorial function, it nevertheless remains the primary responsibility of a claimant to present such evidence and to advance such submissions as are considered relevant to the claims being made: Abebe v Commonwealth [1999] HCA 14 ; (1999) 197 CLR 510 at 576. Gummow and Hayne JJ thus observed that it was:

 ... for the applicant to advance whatever evidence or argument she wishes to advance in support of her contention that she has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. The tribunal must then decide whether that claim is made out.

See also: SZJZS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 789 at [15] to [16] [2008] FCA 789 ; , 102 ALD 318 at 321 to 322. " [I]t is for the applicant for a protection visa to establish the claims that are made ": SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 63 at [40] , [2006] HCA 63 ; 228 CLR 152 at 164. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 105" id="cs4">Although the Tribunal performs an inquisitorial function ( Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI [2009] HCA 39 at [18] , [2009] HCA 39 ; 259 ALR 429 at 434; SZJBA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1592 at [57] , [2007] FCA 1592 ; 164 FCR 14 at 28 to 29), it remains the primary responsibility of a claimant to present such evidence and to advance such submissions as are considered relevant to the claims being made: Abebe v Commonwealth [1999] HCA 14 ; (1999) 197 CLR 510 at 576; SZJZS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 789 at [15] to [16] , 102 ALD 318 at 321 to 322; SZLVZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1816 at [24] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1068" id="cs5">The integers of jurisdictional error arising out of mistranslation as articulated in P119/2002 , as extracted, appeared to have been accepted in a number of Federal Court decisions; WALN v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCAFC 131 per Ryan J (with whom Tamberlin and Middleton JJ agreed at [29]); SZJZE v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1653 per Middleton J and SZJZS v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 789 per Flick J. In this year alone, three Judges of the Federal Court, hearing matters on appeal from this Court, have made direct reference and set out with approval the two criteria referred to in P119/2002. SZNCW v Minister for Immigration [2009] FCA 818 per Barker J; SZHEW v Minister for Immigration [2009] FCA 783 per Jagot J, where her Honour said at [49]; This approach reflects the reasoning of Kenny J in Perera v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 92 FCR 6; [1999] FCA 507.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 582" id="cs6">In this case the applicant claimed to speak English, Zulu and Xhosa. The fact that the applicant had some facility in English (as the appellant in SZGYM had in Mandarin) does not of itself mean that the Tribunal met it s.425 obligation by conducting the hearing in English when the applicant had requested a Xhosa interpreter (see SZGYM and SZJZS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another [2008] FCA 789 ; (2008) 102 ALD 318 per Flick J at [29] --- [34]). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424AA Information and invitation given orally by Tribunal while applicant appearing</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 427 Powers of the Refugee Review Tribunal etc.</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 441A Methods by which Tribunal gives documents to a person other than the Secretary</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>