Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1436">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1436">telecommunications access regime under pt xic of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1436">access disputes between three access seekers and carrier (telstra corporation ltd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1436">telstra)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1436">australian competition and consumer commission (accc) arbitrating disputes under div 8 of pt xic</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1436">accc makes final determination under s 152cp</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1436">telstra challenges final determinations on judicial review grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1436">statutory list of mandatory relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 1436">whether one or more should be given priority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 1436">exhortatory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 1436">whether final determinations invalid because period exceeded period of declaration of line sharing service as a declared service trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 1436">telecommunications access regime under pt xic of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 1436">access disputes between three access seekers and carrier (telstra corporation ltd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 1436">telstra)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2008] FCA 1436">australian competition and consumer commission (accc) arbitrating disputes under div 8 of pt xic</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2008] FCA 1436">accc makes final determination under s 152cp</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2008] FCA 1436">telstra challenges final determinations on judicial review grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2008] FCA 1436">statutory list of mandatory relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2008] FCA 1436">whether one or more should be given priority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2008] FCA 1436">exhortatory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2008] FCA 1436">whether final determinations invalid because period exceeded period of declaration of line sharing service as a declared service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] HCA 7">telstra corporation limited v the commonwealth  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] HCA 7">limitations on legislative powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] HCA 7">acquisition of property on just terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] HCA 7">declaration by the australian competition and consumer commission ("the commission") that certain telecommunications services were "declared services" for the purposes of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] HCA 7">the plaintiff owned the infrastructure needed to provide the declared services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] HCA 7">requirement in s 152ar of the act that other service providers be given access to the plaintiff's infrastructure for the purpose of providing the declared services in direct competition with the plaintiff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] HCA 7">further requirement in s 152ay of the act that access to infrastructure be given on terms and conditions agreed between the plaintiff and the access seeker or, in the absence of such agreement, pursuant to one of two alternative methods that relied upon the approval or determination of the commission (with the australian competition tribunal exercising review powers)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] HCA 7">whether the commission's declaration and the subsequent obligation on the plaintiff to make its infrastructure available to its competitors effected an acquisition of property other than on just terms.  communications law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] HCA 7">telecommunications services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2008] HCA 7">infrastructure to provide declared services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2008] HCA 7">requirement that other service providers be given access to plaintiff's infrastructure for the purpose of providing declared services in direct competition with the plaintiff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2008] HCA 7">whether obligation to provide access effected an acquisition of property other than on just terms.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">east australian pipeline pty limited v australian competition and consumer commission  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">third party access regime for natural gas pipelines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">east australian pipeline pty limited ("eapl") owned a natural gas pipeline which was a covered pipeline under the national third party access code for natural gas pipeline systems ("the code")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">eapl was required to submit to the australian competition and consumer commission ("the accc") an access arrangement for use of the pipeline by third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">accc rejected eapl's proposed access arrangement and adopted its own access arrangement incorporating a reference tariff based on a lower initial capital base ("icb") than that proposed by eapl</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">accc arrived at an icb in a novel fashion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">section 8.10 of the code sets out a number of factors which are to be considered in establishing the icb for an existing pipeline</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">proper construction of s 8.10 of the code</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">whether s 8.10 of the code permits a novel asset valuation methodology.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">administrative review of a regulatory decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">australian competition tribunal ("the tribunal") varied the determination by the accc substituting a new icb</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">grounds for review included a ground that "the exercise of the relevant regulator's discretion was incorrect or unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">nature and scope of the tribunal's jurisdiction to review decision of the accc.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">judicial review of the outcome of an administrative review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">full court of the federal court set side the tribunal's determination of the icb -whether error of law within the meaning of s 5(1)(f) of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">whether there was jurisdictional error attracting the federal court's jurisdiction under s 39b(1) of the judiciary act 1903 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 22">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 22">remaining relative visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 22">tribunal's application of departmental policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 22">misapplication or misconstruction of policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 22">whether error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 22">whether appellant discharged burden imposed by policy of demonstrating no contact within reasonable period with overseas near relatives or that contact confined to single instances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 22">tribunal holding that burden not discharged despite its apparent acceptance of evidence of appellant and his father.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">determination of migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">refusal of grant of business skills visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">whether determination by tribunal irrational, illogical or not based on findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">jurisdictional error vitiating decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">discretion of courts and matters precluding relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">remission to tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">potential for futility  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">review of decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">decision migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">refusal of grant of business skills visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">visa grant criteria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">misconstruction or misapplication of, or failure to apply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">assessment according to departmental policy as assessment for the purposes of visa grant criteria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">policy narrower than visa grant criteria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">jurisdictional error vitiating decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">migration regulations 1994 (cth) , sch 2, cl 845.216</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">application of business skills points test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">whether tribunal erred in application of points test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">migration regulations 1994 (cth) sch 2 cll 845.21 and 845.22 held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">cited from="[2006] FCA 1229">jurisdictional error found in application of policy which was expressed in terms not justified by cl 845.216 of sch 2 of the migration regulations ; that it would not be futile to remit the matter back to the tribunal despite no error being found in tribunal's finding that applicant had not satisfied points test; appeal allowed and proceedings remitted to the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 724">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 724">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 724">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 724">whether refugee review tribunal properly took account of evidence before it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 724">whether tribunal made proper use of investigative powers where tribunal did not take evidence into account yet did make finding that the evidence was not genuine or otherwise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 724">whether appellant could modify the conduct that caused him to fear persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 724">whether tribunal properly considered that relocation would protect the appellant from persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 724">appeal allowed held: the refugee review tribunal failed to assess the appellant's case in accordance with law, as the tribunal (i) did not give proper reasons for its decision and (ii) did not give proper, genuine and real consideration to the applicant's claims that he had a well-founded fear of being persecuted for a convention reason.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">decision by reserve bank of australia to "designate" eftpos system pursuant to s 11 of the payment systems (regulation) act 1998 (cth) (" psr act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether excluding merchants as "participants" in eftpos system was an error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether requisite opinions regarding efficiency and competition were formed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether irrelevant considerations were taken into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether failure to take into account relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether ground of wednesbury unreasonableness extends to reasoning process of decision-maker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether the decision and reasoning underlying decision were unreasonable in the wednesbury sense</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether no evidence for factual findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether reserve bank of australia biased</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">conduct of judicial review litigation statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">construction of ss 7 , 8 and 11 of the payment systems (regulation) act 1998 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">construction of s 10b of the reserve bank act 1959 (cth) evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">expert economic evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">admissibility and use of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">meaning of "competition" and "efficiency"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">relevance to judicial review  banking</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">payment systems</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.18">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">eftpos system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">decision of minister's delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">protection visa sought on basis that appellant was a practitioner of falun gong</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">where minister's delegate made adverse findings on credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">where minister's delegate failed to put information to the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether failure to have regard to information supplied by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether minister's delegate failed to consider future risk of harm to appellant in circumstances where appellant's claim to be an active proponent of falun gong in australia had been accepted. practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">fresh evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">new grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether expedient in the interests of justice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 56">re minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs; ex parte palme  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 56">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 56">minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 56">decision to cancel visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 56">whether decision affected by jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 56">whether prosecutor denied procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 56">whether constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 56">whether decision affected by " wednesbury unreasonableness"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 56">whether alleged failure by minister to notify prosecutor in writing of reasons for decision infected decision with jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 56">migration act 1958 (cth), s 501g.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">re minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte applicant s20/2002  appellant s106/2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">temporary protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">application for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under s 75(v) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">where refugee review tribunal found that applicant was an unreliable witness and discounted evidence said to be corroborative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was "irrational, illogical and not based upon findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was affected by actual bias or by a reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was vitiated by jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">distinction between discretionary decisions and decisions involving the finding of facts essential to the exercise of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision evidenced an erroneous approach to the finding of jurisdictional facts.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">section 75(v) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">review of administrative decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">extent to which the content of the constitutional writs is affected by common law developments in administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.15">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">availability of constitutional writs in proceedings that include an appeal concerning related issues.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.16">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.17">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was "irrational, illogical and not based upon findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.18">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">unavailability of review of factual or evidentiary merits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.19">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether relief available under migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ") or under the constitution , s 75(v)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.20">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal had no jurisdiction to make the decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.21">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether the decision was not authorised by the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.22">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether the decision was marred by error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.23">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable tribunal would have made it.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 167">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 167">consent to development applications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 167">requirement to "take into consideration" development control plan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 167">environmental planning and assessment act 1979 , s79c(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 167">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 167">appeal on question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 167">land and environment court act 1979 , s56a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 38">peter clarence foster v minister for customs and justice  extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 38">extradition to and from commonwealth countries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 38">surrender determination by attorney-general</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 38">limitation condition qualification or exception</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 38">satisfaction that circumstances engaging limitation condition qualification or exception do not exist</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 38">unjust or oppressive or too severe a punishment to surrender eligible person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 38">double layer of satisfaction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 38">whether the minister is satisfied that he or she is not satisfied that it would be unjust or oppressive or too severe a punishment to surrender eligible person.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 38">judicial review legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 38">alleged failure to take into account a particular consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 38">extent of minister's obligation to make inquiries.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 145">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 145">construction of parliament members' guide to entitlements, facilities and services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 145">warrants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 145">air charter travel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 145">'transferable'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 145">d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">corporation of the city of enfield v development assessment commission  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">judicial review of administrative discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">jurisdictional facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">consent of statutory authority to provisional development plan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">consent prohibited if development "non-complying"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">classification a jurisdictional fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">whether statutory authority exceeded power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">whether weight to be accorded to opinion of statutory authority upon judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">whether court restricted to evidence before statutory authority.  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">public law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">restraint of apprehended breach of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">error with respect to jurisdictional fact.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.15">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">error with respect to jurisdictional fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.16">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">availability of prerogative writs and equitable remedies.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">project blue sky inc  ors v australian broadcasting authority  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">reconciliation of conflicting provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">intention of legislature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">presumption that provisions intended to achieve consistent goals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">leading and subordinate provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">grammatical meaning and legal meaning.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">acts done in breach of a condition regulating a statutory power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">mandatory and directory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">purpose-based test.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.13">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.14">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.15">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">standard prescribing australian content requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.16">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether inconsistent with legislative requirement that functions be performed consistently with australia's international obligations.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.17">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.18">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.19">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.20">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">power to make standards that "relate to ... the australian content of programs"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.21">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether restricted to standards conferring preferential treatment.  trade law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.22">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australia new zealand closer economic relations trade agreement.  broadcasting services act 1992 (cth), ss 3 , 122 , 158, 160.  broadcasting services (transitional provisions and consequential amendments) act 1992 (cth), s 21.  tasker v fullwood [1978] 1 nswlr 20 at 23-24 applied.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">collector of customs v agfa-gevaert limited    administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">administrative appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">distinction between questions of fact and questions of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">whether ordinary or non-legal technical meaning of word is question of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">whether effect or construction of term whose meaning is established is question of law.  statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">revenue statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">composite phrase which taken as a whole has no trade meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">whether error of law to construe composite phrase by giving trade meaning to some words in phrase and ordinary meaning to remaining words in phrase</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">relationship between trade meaning and ordinary meaning.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application of chan v minister for immigration and ethnic affairs [1989] hca 62 ; (1989) 169 clr 379</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">statutory discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">ministerial policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">role of policy in exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">on merits review by administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">relevant factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">misapplication or misconstruction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">failure to take into account relevant factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">error of law.   immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">criminal deportation policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.11">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">merits review by administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.12">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">misapplication of policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.13">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">whether reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.14">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">prior warnings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.15">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">effect and relevance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.16">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">community benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.17">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">how assessed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.18">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">relationship to personal hardship to deportee and others.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">justices (q.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">search warrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">reasonable grounds for suspicion or belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">whether justice must entertain suspicion or belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">facts to found reasonable suspicion or belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">sworn complaint</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">relevance of statements otherwise than on oath</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">the criminal code (q.), s. 679.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">cited from="[1987] FCA 457">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">cited from="[1987] FCA 457">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">cited from="[1987] FCA 457">applications for permanent resident status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">cited from="[1987] FCA 457">applicants members of a bengali family</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">cited from="[1987] FCA 457">one child of the marriage an australian citizen</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">cited from="[1987] FCA 457">applications for resident status refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">cited from="[1987] FCA 457">failure of decisionmaker to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of the applications in exercising his discretion in accordance with policy.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.21">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">grounds on which further appellate court will interfere with intermediate court's exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">reasons for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">duty to provide</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">whether implied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">public service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">application for promotion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">appeal by unsuccessful applicant to public service board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">no duty to give reasons for dismissing appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">relevance of statutory changes in administrative practice in other jurisdictions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">public service act 1979 (n.s.w.), ss. 58, 65a(6), 116.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 32">broadcasting and television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 32">australian broadcasting tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 32">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 32">to determine "standards"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 32">prohibition of transmission of children's programmes not classified by tribunal as complying with certain criteria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 32">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 32">broadcasting and television act 1942 (cth), ss. 16(1)(d), (f), 17(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">real property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">grazing licence granted pursuant to statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">not assignable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">terminable on notice by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">whether estate or interest in land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">whether profit a prendre</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">crown lands act 1931 (n.t.), s. 107(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">crown land regulations (n.t.), regs. 70, 71, 71a.  aboriginal lands</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">traditional land claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">unalienated crown land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">application to aboriginal land commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">report</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.12">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.13">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">comment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.14">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1970 (cth), s. 50.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.15">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.16">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">commissioner to ascertain whether aboriginals traditional owners of land and if so to recommend grant of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.17">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">findings to be reported to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.18">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">requirement to have regard to various matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.19">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">requirement to comment on other matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.20">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">whether in deciding whether to recommend grant commissioner bound to have regard to matters for comment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.21">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976 (cth), s. 50.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">cited from="[1979] HCA 50">statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">cited from="[1979] HCA 50">proclamations pursuant to statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">cited from="[1979] HCA 50">compulsory acquisition of sugar</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">cited from="[1979] HCA 50">power for governor in council to determine values and fix prices by proclamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">cited from="[1979] HCA 50">delegation of certain functions by governor in council to sugar board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.5">cited from="[1979] HCA 50">discretionary power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.6">cited from="[1979] HCA 50">failure to stipulate certain or objective standards</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.7">cited from="[1979] HCA 50">validity of prices fixed by sugar board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.8">cited from="[1979] HCA 50">proclamation by governor in council determining values and fixing prices for season</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.9">cited from="[1979] HCA 50">subsequent proclamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.10">cited from="[1979] HCA 50">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.11">cited from="[1979] HCA 50">sugar acquisition act of 1915 (q.), ss. 6 (1), 10, 13 (2), 14</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.12">cited from="[1979] HCA 50">acts interpretation act of 1954 (q.), s. 24.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.0">cited from="[1968] HCA 8">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.1">cited from="[1968] HCA 8">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.2">cited from="[1968] HCA 8">vagueness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.3">cited from="[1968] HCA 8">uncertainty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.4">cited from="[1968] HCA 8">contract capable of meaning distinguished from meaningless contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.5">cited from="[1968] HCA 8">commercial contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.6">cited from="[1968] HCA 8">"variations in supplier's costs".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.0">cited from="[1963] HCA 54">workers' compensation (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.1">cited from="[1963] HCA 54">action at law independently of compensation legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.2">cited from="[1963] HCA 54">prescribed period for bringing action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.3">cited from="[1963] HCA 54">extension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.4">cited from="[1963] HCA 54">sufficient cause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.5">cited from="[1963] HCA 54">burden of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.6">cited from="[1963] HCA 54">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.7">cited from="[1963] HCA 54">workers' compensation act, 1926-1960 (n.s.w.), s. 63 (3).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.0">cited from="[1963] HCA 30">statutory powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.1">cited from="[1963] HCA 30">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.2">cited from="[1963] HCA 30">licence for commercial television station</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.3">cited from="[1963] HCA 30">power in minister to impose conditions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.4">cited from="[1963] HCA 30">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.5">cited from="[1963] HCA 30">certainty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.6">cited from="[1963] HCA 30">consistency with statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.7">cited from="[1963] HCA 30">"obstruct, prejudice or interfere with . . . "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.8">cited from="[1963] HCA 30">broadcasting and television act 1942-1960 (no. 33 of 1942</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.9">cited from="[1963] HCA 30">no. 36 of 1960) (cth), ss. 81, 86 (1), 105a, 108.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.0">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">industrial law (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.1">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">stevedoring industry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.2">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">registration of employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.3">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">cancellation or suspension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.4">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">"unfit to be registered as an employer"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.5">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">interference with proper performance of stevedoring operations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.6">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">control and supervision of employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.7">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">inquiry by delegate of stevedoring board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.8">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">prohibition to restrain delegate prior to making order of cancellation or suspension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.9">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.10">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">prejudgment of issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.11">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">statement to newspaper reporter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.12">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">stevedoring industry act 1949 (no. 39 of 1949), s. 23 (1) (a) (b).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.0">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">constitutional law (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.1">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">powers of commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.2">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.3">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.4">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">laws of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.5">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">execution and maintenance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.6">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">conciliation and arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.7">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">public service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.8">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">judicial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.9">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">acquisition of property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.10">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">incidental power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.11">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">defence power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.12">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">exercise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.13">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">existence of war</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.14">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.15">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">preparation against risk of war</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.16">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">enemies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.17">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">actual or potential</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.18">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">external and internal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.19">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">overthrow or dislocation of established system of government</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.20">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">alleged revolutionary party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.21">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">use of treasonable or subversive means</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.22">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">dislocation in industries vital to security and defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.23">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">dissolution of party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.24">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">bodies of persons or persons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.25">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">unlawful association</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.26">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">declaration by governor-general</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.27">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">"satisfied"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.28">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">forfeiture to commonwealth of property of party and declared persons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.29">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">declared persons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.30">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">ineligibility to hold office in an industrial organization relating to vital industry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.31">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">freedom of "intercourse" among the states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.32">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.33">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">preamble</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.34">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">recitals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.35">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">allegations of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.36">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">effect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.37">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.38">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">necessity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.39">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">desirability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.40">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.41">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">validity of statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.42">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">severability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.43">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 51 (vi.), (xxxi.), (xxxv.), (xxxix.), 52 , 61 , 71 , 92</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.44">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">judiciary act 1903-1948 (no. 6 of 1903</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.45">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">no. 65 of 1948), s. 18</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.46">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">commonwealth conciliation and arbitration act 1904-1949 (no. 13 of 1904</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.47">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">no. 86 of 1949)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.48">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">acts interpretation act 1901-1948 (no. 2 of 1901</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.49">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">no. 79 of 1948), s. 15a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.50">cited from="[1951] HCA 5">communist party dissolution act 1950 (no. 16 of 1950).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.0">cited from="[1949] HCA 26">income tax (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.1">cited from="[1949] HCA 26">assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.2">cited from="[1949] HCA 26">deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.3">cited from="[1949] HCA 26">private company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.4">cited from="[1949] HCA 26">accumulated losses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.5">cited from="[1949] HCA 26">majority of shares sold to other persons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.6">cited from="[1949] HCA 26">claim to deduct losses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.7">cited from="[1949] HCA 26">statutory requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.8">cited from="[1949] HCA 26">shares carrying twenty-five per cent of voting power to be beneficially held on last day of year of income by persons who beneficially held shares carrying not less than twenty-five per cent of voting power on last day of year in which loss incurred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.9">cited from="[1949] HCA 26">"beneficially held"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.10">cited from="[1949] HCA 26">"held"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.11">cited from="[1949] HCA 26">"member" of the company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.12">cited from="[1949] HCA 26">facts to be established to satisfaction of the commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.13">cited from="[1949] HCA 26">decision of the commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.14">cited from="[1949] HCA 26">review by the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.15">cited from="[1949] HCA 26">income tax assessment act 1936-1944 (no. 27 of 1936</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.16">cited from="[1949] HCA 26">no. 28 of 1944), ss. 80 (2), (5), 187 (b), 197, 198 (2), 199.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.0">cited from="[1948] HCA 7">constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.1">cited from="[1948] HCA 7">powers of commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.2">cited from="[1948] HCA 7">banking</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.3">cited from="[1948] HCA 7">acquisition of property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.4">cited from="[1948] HCA 7">"just terms"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.5">cited from="[1948] HCA 7">original jurisdiction of high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.6">cited from="[1948] HCA 7">"the commonwealth, or a person . . . sued on behalf of the commonwealth" commonwealth bank</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.7">cited from="[1948] HCA 7">agency of government</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.8">cited from="[1948] HCA 7">freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse among the states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.9">cited from="[1948] HCA 7">interference with governmental functions of states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.10">cited from="[1948] HCA 7">the financial agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.11">cited from="[1948] HCA 7">statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.12">cited from="[1948] HCA 7">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.13">cited from="[1948] HCA 7">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.14">cited from="[1948] HCA 7">severability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.15">cited from="[1948] HCA 7">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 51 (xiii.), (xx), (xxxi), (xxxix.), 75 (iii.), 92 , 105a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.16">cited from="[1948] HCA 7">banking act 1947 (no. 57 of 1947)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.17">cited from="[1948] HCA 7">commonwealth bank act 1945 (no. 13 of 1945).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">visa cancellation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">character test applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">upheld by aat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">judicial review of tribunal's decision sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">errors of law alleged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">failure to take into account "primary considerations"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">failure to apply two-step test to factors prescribed in ministerial direction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.8">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">failure to weigh best interests of a child against other considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.9">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">hierarchy of considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.10">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">improper exercise of power alleged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.11">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">best interests of the child not accorded primary consideration over other interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.12">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">failure to enquire alleged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.13">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">none of the appeal grounds made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.14">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.0">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 39">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.1">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 39">legislative instruments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.2">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 39">need for certainty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.3">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 39">cannot incorporate material "from time to time"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.4">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 39">remittal of proceeding to administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.5">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 39">whether it should be differently constituted  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.6">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 39">notice of contention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">appeal from decision of federal magistrate upholding an application for review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">whether refugee review tribunal failed to take into account a relevant consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">whether decision affected by jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">whether psychologist's report is corroborative evidence of claim to be a refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">whether failure to consider report as corroborative amounts to jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">whether refugee review tribunal misunderstood the purpose of psychologist's report</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">making findings on credibility is the function of the decision-maker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.8">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">it is a matter for the tribunal to determine the weight to be given to a psychologist's report</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.9">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.10">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 145">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 145">whether the migration review tribunal ( the tribunal ) fell into jurisdictional error in the present case by failing to have regard to all mandatory considerations prescribed by reg 2.41 of the migration regulations 1994 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 145">whether that failure was demonstrated on the face of the reasons for decision given by the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 145">discussion of the meaning of the phrase "have regard to" in s 109(1)(c) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 145">the content of the obligation to have regard to the mandatory criteria specified in reg 2.41 will depend upon the circumstances of each case and will be heavily influenced by the material provided to the relevant decision maker by the visa holder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 145">in the present case, the tribunal did not fall into jurisdictional error  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 145">discussion of the meaning of the phrase "have regard to" in s 109(1)(c) of the migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 145">discussion of the criteria specified in reg 2.41 of the migration regulations as "prescribed circumstances" for the purposes of s 109(1)(c) of the migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp44.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 86">customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp44.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 86">application for review of variable factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp44.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 86">application for continuation of existing dumping measures</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp44.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 86">material injury   legislation: customs act 1901 (cth) part xvb  customs tariff (anti-dumping) act 1975 (cth), s 8   cases cited: australian paper ltd v anti-dumping authority (1998) 88 fcr 367 , cited</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 705">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 705">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 705">decision to appoint members to professional services review committee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 705">whether decision maker misconstrued statutory requirements dealing with requisite attributes for appointment as a member</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 705">decision not to revoke appointments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 705">alleged that decision maker failed to consider the statutory basis for revocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 705">whether there was a failure in decision making process or a failure in communicating the basis for the decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 705">whether failure by applicant to seek reasons for decision relevant to exercise of discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 705">application dismissed.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 705">admissibility of evidence not before the decision maker in proceedings for judicial review.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 381">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 381">review of tribunal decision to cancel a dd visa sub-class 880</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 381">whether tribunal properly considered matters referred to in reg 2.41 migration regulations 1994 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 219">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 219">mrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 219">skilled overseas student residence visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 219">finding that qualification in e-business was not related to nominated occupation of cook</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 219">whether failure to consider contents of pam3 and earlier decisions of tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 219">whether failure to give genuine, proper and realistic consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 219">no jurisdictional error established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 219">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 330">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 330">first respondent failed to pass "character test"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 330">consideration of cancellation of visa subject to minister's direction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 330">aat decided not to cancel visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 330">alleged failure by aat to sufficiently take into account "primary considerations" and "other considerations" provided in minister's direction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 330">whether any jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 171">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 171">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 171">whether tribunal had an adequate basis to take into account psychiatric diagnosis as not explaining inconsistent evidence given by applicant for review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 171">no apparent standard or reasoning by which tribunal imposed a test of what it expected a person affected by psychiatric condition to remember  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 171">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 171">failure by tribunal to make an obvious enquiry about a critical fact the existence of which was easily ascertained</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 171">whether tribunal ought to have considered agent's request in responding to letter under s 424a(1) to exercise power under s 427(1)(d) of the migration act 1958 (cth) to obtain a psychiatric examination of the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 171">tribunal overlooked, or had no good reason for not, considering such request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 171">no evidence that proper, genuine and realistic consideration was given to the serious request by appellant's agent for medical examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">applicant for protection visa provided 2 letters, from a former employer and headmaster of his children's school, from home country in support of his claim of persecution by maoist insurgents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">dfat investigated the letters, at the request of an earlier tribunal, and found them to be genuine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">tribunal member accepted that letters were bona fide</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">tribunal gave the letters "no weight" because applicant had "solicited" them in support of his claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">giving no weight constituted a failure to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the objective, credible, third party material corroborating the applicant's claim of the applicant's claim and thus fell into jurisdictional error   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">apparent bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">applicant for protection visa provided 2 letters, from a former employer and headmaster of his children's school, from home country in support of his claim of persecution by maoist insurgents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">tribunal member described the applicant's evidence as "back-tracking" and a "baseless tactic"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">the claim and evidence in support was made consistently throughout the application and review process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">characterisation of applicant's claims as "baseless tactic" was made without evidence and conflicted with the objective evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">a fair minded lay observer or properly informed law person would regard the tribunal's characterisation of the applicant's claims as apparently biased    anderson v director-general of the department of environmental and climate change [2008] nswca 337 ; (2008) 251 alr 633 discussed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 140">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 140">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 140">cancellation of visa under s 501(2) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 140">visa holder failed to pass character test because he had a substantial criminal record by reason of having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of twelve months or more</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 140">minister's delegate cancelled visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 140">administrative appeals tribunal affirmed delegate's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 140">primary judge dismissed application to set aside tribunal's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 140">written direction given by minister under s 499 of act about exercise of power of cancellation under s 501</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 140">requirement that decision-maker take into account general deterrence when deciding whether discretion to cancel visa should be exercised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.9">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 140">whether aat had genuinely considered factor of general deterrence or had merely referred to it in a formulaic manner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.10">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 140">same tribunal member having set out general principles relating to factor of general deterrence in identical terms in earlier decision. migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.11">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 140">cancellation of visa under s 501(2) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.12">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 140">visa holder failed to pass character test because he had a substantial criminal record by reason of having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of twelve months or more</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.13">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 140">minister's delegate cancelled visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.14">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 140">administrative appeals tribunal affirmed delegate's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.15">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 140">primary judge dismissed application to set aside tribunal's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.16">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 140">written direction given by minister under s 499 of act about exercise of power of cancellation under s 501</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.17">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 140">requirement that decision-maker take into account general deterrence when deciding whether discretion to cancel visa should be exercised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.18">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 140">whether aat had genuinely considered factor of general deterrence or had merely referred to it in a formulaic manner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.19">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 140">same tribunal member having set out general principles relating to factor of general deterrence in identical terms in earlier decision.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">anti-dumping duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">review application of existing anti-dumping measures</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">customs act 1901 (cth) div 5 pt xvb</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">ss 269tae , 269tg , 269zda , 269zdb</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">nature of review process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">chief executive officer of customs prepares statement of essential facts and report and makes recommendation to minister as to whether anti-dumping duty notice should remain unaltered, be revoked or varied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">relevance to review application of statutory criteria governing initial declaration of anti-dumping duty, under s 269tg</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">whether ceo and minister required to consider again in review whether the dumping of imports is causing or threatening to cause material injury to an australian industry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">whether the ceo and minister permitted to set a new non-injurious price by following customs' standard policy of using the unsuppressed selling price of australian like products without considering whether that price is affected by other factors than the dumping   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">administrative decision making</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">minister as decision-maker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">discretion in making decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">decision must be made having regard to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the legislative scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">decision must be made on the basis of the most current information available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">importance of the decision maker actively considering a statutory requirement, rather than giving it cursory consideration and putting it to one side   statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">statutes implementing international conventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.17">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">principles governing construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.18">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">using international instrument as an aid to construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.19">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">importance of construing implemented international instrument liberally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.20">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">decisions of international tribunal on the implemented international instrument should be given significant weight in interpreting domestic legislation    held: ceo and minister failed to ascertain whether dumping caused or threatened any material injury and what anti-dumping measures were appropriate and adopted to meet that injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.21">citing from="[2009] FCA 837">decision set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 838">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 838">anti-dumping duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 838">sunset review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 838">customs act 1901 (cth) div 6a pt xvb</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 838">ss 269tae , 269 zhf, 269zhg</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 838">test to be applied by chief executive officer of customs in preparing statement of essential facts and report to minister and by minister in declaring continuation of anti-dumping duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 838">ceo had to be satisfied expiration of measures would lead or be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury existing measure intend to prevent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 838">whether the ceo and minister had to consider whether material injury was being caused, or threatened to be caused, by dumping</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 838">whether s 269tae applied so as to require likelihood of material injury to be foreseeable and imminent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 838">whether material injury was being caused or threatened by a factor other than dumping of imports   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 838">administrative decision making</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 838">ceo required to form a particular state of satisfaction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 838">importance of decision maker actively considering a statutory requirement, rather than giving it cursory consideration and putting it to one side</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 68">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 68">appeal in respect of reasons which arguably formed part of the reasoning which supported orders made by way of judicial review at first instance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 68">the primary judge quashed a determination made by the accc pursuant to s 152cp of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) and remitted the matter for hearing and determination according to law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 68">the primary judge erroneously construed s 152aqb(2) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 68">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 68">the appropriate remedy on appeal was to vary the order for remitter so as to make clear that the decision-maker (the accc) was to apply the full court's interpretation of s 152aqb(2) insofar as that section was relevant to further determinations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 68">interpretative declaration refused  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 68">statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 68">interpretation of s 152aqb(2) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.9">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 68">the accc was obliged to make a determination setting out some model terms and conditions in relation to access for defined core services in the telecommunications industry but was not obliged to make a comprehensive set of such terms and conditions governing all relevant matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.10">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 68">the primary judge erred in holding that the model terms and conditions contemplated by s 152aqb(2) had to be exhaustive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.11">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 68">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">retrospective legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">deeming provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">intended to reverse effect of judicial decision that statutory power to cancel a visa could not be exercised in respect of particular class of visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">deeming provision validated decisions by the minister and a delegate of the minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">deeming provision silent about validity of decision made before retrospective legislation enacted by administrative appeals tribunal to affirm decision of delegate to cancel visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">whether tribunal's decision continued to be invalid after retrospective legislation commenced because of its earlier jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">whether validation of delegate's previously invalid decision also validated previously invalid decision of tribunal   statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">principles of construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">retrospective legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">deeming provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">principle that legislature is taken not to intend to interfere with fundamental or accrued rights unless express language is used</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">principle of interpretation when construing retrospective legislation that the parliament intended to act fairly</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">deeming provision designed to overcome the effect of a superior court decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">deeming provision created a statutory fiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">importance of identifying the legislative purpose of the deeming provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.17">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">whether deeming provision is capable of removing jurisdictional error where no express words used   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.18">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">decision-maker ignoring relevant material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.19">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp56.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 431">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp56.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 431">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp56.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 431">protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp56.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 431">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp56.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 431">citizen of china claiming fear of persecution for reason of religion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp56.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 431">applicant claimed to be a member of underground catholic church</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp56.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 431">credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp56.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 431">whether the tribunal failed to comply with migration act 1958 (cth) s.91r(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp56.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 431">whether the tribunal failed to take evidence into consideration as to whether the applicant was a catholic</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp56.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 431">whether the tribunal failed to comply with migration act 1958 (cth) s.425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp56.10">citing from="[2009] FMCA 431">jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 23">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 23">judicial review of decision of the australian competition tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 23">true construction of part xic of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 23">errors of law and jurisdictional error committed by the tribunal when reviewing a decision of the australian competition and consumer commission to grant exemptions in favour of the applicant from the requirement to afford access to declared telecommunications services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 23">decision of the tribunal set aside and remitted to the tribunal for further consideration and determination according to law. trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 23">statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 23">part xic of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 23">telecommunications access regime and exemption from access obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 23">interpretation of ss 152ab, 152at and 152ata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.9">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 23">decision-maker obliged to consider all three objectives set out in s 152ab(2)(c) to (e) in determining whether a particular thing will promote the long-term interests of end-users of listed services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.10">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 23">the long-term interests of end-users of listed services is the sole object of part xic</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.11">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 23">upon the true construction of s 152at(4), the only matter calling for consideration is whether the decision-maker is satisfied that the making of the exemption order will promote the long term-interests of end-users of listed services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.12">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 23">no residual discretion afforded to the relevant decision-maker under s 152at(4)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.13">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 23">objective set out in s 152ab(2)(c), being the objective of promoting competition in markets for listed services, does not authorise as a mandatory matter the imposition of an evidentiary test which requires the tender of empirical evidence as to the present state of competition in the relevant markets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.14">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 23">the promotion of competition in s 152ab(c) is to be assessed by having regard to traditional concepts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.15">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 23">decision-maker, when considering an application for exemption under s 152at, obliged to consider whether the imposition of conditions or limitations pursuant to s 152at(5) enable it to be satisfied that the exemption will promote the long-term interests of end-users of listed services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.16">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 23">the tribunal has no power to review decisions made by the accc pursuant to ss 152al, 152as and 152asa.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1938">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1938">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1938">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1938">whether tribunal erred because it did not base its decision on a consideration of most recent country information available to it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1938">general principle that, in absence of legislation to contrary, administrative decision-maker is required to make decision on basis of most current material available to him or her at time decision is made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1938">requirement that tribunal give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to merits of case  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1938">refugee and humanitarian visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1938">husband, wife and child applied for protection visas on grounds that, among other things, parents in contravention of china's one-child policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1938">child conceived in china, born in australia, claimed to fear of persecution in china by reason of his membership of particular social group, namely, "black children" administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1938">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 1938">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 1938">refugee and humanitarian visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 1938">whether tribunal erred because it did not make findings in relation to amount of social compensation fee likely to be imposed on parents for breaches of one-child policy, or time that child would be a "black child" while fee remained unpaid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 1938">tribunal speculated about possibility that fee that may be imposed and possible scenarios as to how long it might take parents to pay it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.14">citing from="[2008] FCA 1938">tribunal did not make any finding regarding whether or not there was a real chance that any particular fee would be imposed or that a fee would be so large or time for payment of any fee would be so long that child had well-founded fear of persecution as "black child", if returned to china, because he would remain unregistered until fee was paid</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 237" id="cs0">Counsel for Mr Basile sought to contrast the sense in which the phrase "taken into account" was used by Lord Hewart CJ with the sense in which it is currently employed in Australian administrative law. He referred to the authorities, collected by Rares J in Telstra Corporation Limited v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1758 at [105] - [107]. His Honour there said:

 "[105] I am of opinion that when s 152CR(1)(d) required the Commission, in making a final determination, to take into account Telstra's direct costs of providing access to the ULLS in the manner the Commission proposed, it was required to take that matter into account, together with the other matters referred to in the section, and to give weight to them as a fundamental element in making its decision: The Queen v Toohey; Ex parte Meneling Station Pty Limited [1982] HCA 69 ; (1982) 158 CLR 327 at 333 per Gibbs CJ applying what Mason J had said in Sean Investments 180 CLR at 329 to a section requiring a decision-maker to take a variety of matters into account. Mason J said that the requirement to have regard to a matter meant that it would become a central element for the decision-maker in his considerations: Meneling Station 158 CLR at 338.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCAFC 39" id="cs1">It is important where there is no statutory clause like s 15A and it is important in using s 15A. For the inference in such a case is strong that provisions so associated form an entire law and that no legislative intention existed that anything less should operate as a law.

Appl'd: Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1758 at [191] , [2008] FCA 1758 ; 176 FCR 153 at 200 per Rares J. For subsequent proceedings, see: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2009] FCAFC 68 , 176 FCR 203. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 53" id="cs2">In SZJSS Rares J held (at 280 [43]) that the Tribunal's statement that it gave "no weight" to letters corroborating the appellants' claims in the circumstances of that case was inconsistent with "any rational, reasonable approach to the evaluation of that evidence"; and, because of this, his Honour concluded that the Tribunal "was not genuinely considering the appellants' claims as corroborated by the letters on the material before it". His Honour explained (at 280-1 [43]) that:

 [The Tribunal] used the formula of giving material "no weight" as a basis on which it might ignore probative, relevant and highly supportive material corroborating the factual basis of the fears which the husband claimed. It did this simply as a basis for putting the evidence to one side, having said that it had looked at it. In Telstra Corporation Limited v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1758 ; (2008) 176 FCR 153 at 1818-182 [106] - [107] (approved in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2009] FCAFC 23 ; (2009) 175 FCR 201 at 24 [242 [267] per Jacobson, Lander and Foster JJ and Lafu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCAFC 140 at [47] per Lingren, Foster JJ and myself) I said:

 A decision-maker must give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of the case: Khan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1987] FCA 457 ; (1987) 14 ALD 291 at 292 per Gummow J; Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWCA 167 ; (2001) 51 NSWLR 589 at 601 [62] where Spigelman CJ collected the authorities; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30 ; (2001) 206 CLR 323 at 367 [138] per Kirby J; NAJT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 134 ; [2005] FCAFC 134 ; (2005) 147 FCR 51 at 92-93 [212] per Madgwick J, 96 [229] per Conti J; SZEJF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 at [39] , [60] where I applied this principle. In Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451 at 462C-D, Black CJ said that where a decision-maker was required to consider material, the process of consideration "... involves an active intellectual process" directed at the nominated subject-matter: see too per Burchett J at 476F-477E, per Kiefel J at 495F-G and Tobacco Institute of Australia v National Health  Medical Research Council (1996) 71 FCR 265 at 277G per Finn J; Australian Retailers Association 148 FCR at 577 [526] per Weinberg J.

 Where a decision-maker must consider matters prescribed by law, generally, he or she cannot jettison or ignore some of those factors or give them cursory consideration only in order to put them to one side: East Australian Pipeline Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2007) 233 CLR 229 at 244 [52] per Gleeson CJ, Heydon and Crennan JJ. As Gummow and Hayne JJ, in concurring observed ( East Australian Pipeline 233 CLR at 256 [102]):

 It was not enough for the ACCC to say in its final determination that it had considered those matters in the sense of having looked at but discarded them.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 145" id="cs3">Those submissions were aptly summarised at [15] of the Federal Magistrate's reasons as follows: The applicant argues the failure to consider a mandatory matter constitutes a failure to take into account a relevant consideration that constitutes jurisdictional error; Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko Wallsend Limited [1986] HCA 40 ; (1985) 162 CLR 24 at [39] per Mason J. The respondent argues that:

 "What is required by the Tribunal is an active intellectual consideration where the consideration is a central element in the consideration of a decision maker or something of sufficient weight or importance: Peko Wallsend Ibid at [39---40], Telstra Corporation Limited v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2008) 107 ALD 474 ; [2008] FCA 1758 at [103 ---112] approved and applied in Telstra Corporation Limited v Australian Competition Tribunal [2009] FCAFC 23 at [267] per Jacobson, Lander and Foster JJ. On the facts of this case it is clear that none of the items were items in (f) to (k) of Regulation 2.41 were ultimately central to the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion. On the facts, nor would one expect them to be. Section 109 requires their consideration, but the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion evidently did not turn upon them. "

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 86" id="cs4">44 The clearest instance where the Appellants contended that the primary Judge had erred by incorporating the criteria in s 269TG as criteria necessarily to be taken into account as " fundamental elements " when discharging the functions imposed by s 269ZDA and s 269ZDB was the following part of His Honour's reasoning:
 The Correct Test [82] ... The Minister (and the CEO in preparing the report under s 269ZDA(1)) had first, to take into account the criteria in s 269TG(2) and, secondly, to give weight to his or her conclusions on those criteria, as fundamental elements in making a declaration under s 269ZDB(1). In that way, the initial justification for the s 269TG(2) declaration would be revisited by the Minister having regard to the up-to-date information ascertained in the review process under Div 5 of Pt XVB and the purposes of the Act and the Dumping Duty Act would be addressed appropriately by him in making the relevant choice in a declaration under s 269ZDB(1)(a): R v Hunt; Ex parte Sean Investments Pty Ltd [1979] HCA 32 ; [1979] HCA 32 ; (1979) 180 CLR 322 at 329 per Mason J (with whom Gibbs J agreed); Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1758 ; (2008) 107 ALD 474 at 501---503 [103]---[112] where I discussed the principles. Contrary to such reliance as His Honour may have placed upon Sean Investments and his own earlier observations in Telstra Corporation , the Appellants contended that the requirement imposed upon the Chief Executive Officer by s 269ZDA(1) that he " must ... give the Minister a report recommending " one or other of those options set forth in s 269ZDA(1)(a) was not a requirement mandating that any particular matter had to be given " fundamental " importance: See Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1436 at [112] to [120] [2008] FCA 1436 ; , 171 FCR 174 at 200 to 201 per Lindgren J.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 705" id="cs5">Evidence may also be admissible to prove the meaning of technical terms contained in material utilised by the decision maker: see Telstra Corporation Ltd v ACCC [2008] FCA 1758 ; (2008) 176 FCR 153 at [48] per Rares J, and the authorities to which his Honour there refers. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 381" id="cs6">The applicant argues the failure to consider a mandatory matter constitutes a failure to take into account a relevant consideration that constitutes jurisdictional error; Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko Wallsend Limited [1986] HCA 40 ; (1985) 162 CLR 24 at [39] per Mason J. The respondent argues that: "What is required by the Tribunal is an active intellectual consideration where the consideration is a central element in the consideration of a decision maker or something of sufficient weight or importance: Peko Wallsend Ibid at [39 --- 40], Telstra Corporation Limited v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2008) 107 ALD 474 ; [2008] FCA 1758 at [103 --- 112] approved and applied in Telstra Corporation Limited v Australian Competition Tribunal [2009] FCAFC 23 at [267] per Jacobsen, Lander and Foster JJ. On the facts of this case it is clear that none of the items were items in (f) to (k) of Regulation 241 were ultimately central to the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion. On the facts, nor would one expect them to be. Section 109 requires their consideration, but the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion evidently did not turn upon them. " </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 219" id="cs7"/>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 330" id="cs8">The statutory direction in s 499(2A) of the Act, that the AAT comply with the Direction, had the result that it was bound to treat each of the matters which it was required to consider as a "fundamental element" ( R v Hunt; Ex parte Sean Investments Pty Ltd [1979] HCA 32 ; (1979) 180 CLR 322 at 329), although generally, and subject to any effective direction, the weight to be given to particular considerations remains a matter for the decision-maker ( Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40 ; (1986) 162 CLR 24 at 41). In Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1758 ; (2008) 176 FCR 153 Rares J expressed the view (at [110]) that the combined effect of these, and other, judicial statements was that a decision-maker was required to treat consideration of the factors, as opposed to the factors themselves, as a central element in the deliberative process. His Honour's views were referred to by a Full Court in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2009] FCAFC 23 ; (2009) 175 FCR 201 at [267] . Counsel for the Minister submitted in the present case that the views expressed by Rares J were "cited approvingly". For my own part I think the emphasis given by the Full Court was on the need to treat the relevant factors as central or fundamental elements in making the decision. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 171" id="cs9">There may be many situations where the tribunal need not elaborate on why it did not exercise a power to make a further enquiry: cf SGLB 207 ALR at 49 [124]-[125] per Callinan J. But, here the appellant's agent's comments and response in answer to the s 424A letter suggested that his medical condition and forgetfulness were linked and that a medical examination should be obtained. There is nothing to suggest that the tribunal engaged in an active intellectual process or otherwise considered the request that it exercise its power: see too Lafu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCAFC 140 at [47] - [49] per Lindgren, Foster JJ and myself; Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1758 ; (2008) 176 FCR 153 at 181-182 [105] - [107] per myself. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1577" id="cs10">It used the formula of giving material "no weight" as a basis on which it might ignore probative, relevant and highly supportive material corroborating the factual basis of the fears which the husband claimed. It did this simply as a basis for putting the evidence to one side, having said that it had looked at it. In Telstra Corporation Limited v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1758 ; (2008) 176 FCR 153 at 181-182 [106] - [107] (approved in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2009] FCAFC 23 ; (2009) 175 FCR 201 at 242 [267] per Jacobson, Lander and Foster JJ and Lafu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCAFC 140 at [47] per Lindgren, Foster JJ and myself) I said:

 " A decision-maker must give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of the case: Khan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1987] FCA 457 ; (1987) 14 ALD 291 at 292 per Gummow J; Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWCA 167 ; (2001) 51 NSWLR 589 at [62] where Spigelman CJ collected the authorities; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30 ; (2001) 206 CLR 323 at [138] per Kirby J; NAJT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 134 ; (2005) 147 FCR 51 at [212] per Madgwick J, [229] per Conti J; SZEJF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 at [39], [60] where I applied this principle. In Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451 at 462C-D, Black CJ said that where a decision-maker was required to consider material, the process of consideration "involves an active intellectual process" directed at the nominated subject-matter: see too per Burchett J at 476F-477E, per Kiefel J at 495F-G and Tobacco Institute of Australia v National Health  Medical Research Council (1996) 71 FCR 265 at 277G per Finn J; Australian Retailers Association [2005] FCA 1707 ; 148 FCR 446 at [526] per Weinberg J.

 Where a decision-maker must consider matters prescribed by law, generally, he or she cannot jettison or ignore some of those factors or give them cursory consideration only in order to put them to one side: East Australian Pipeline Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2007] HCA 44 ; (2007) 233 CLR 229 at [52] per Gleeson CJ, Heydon and Crennan JJ.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 140" id="cs11">47 The Minister accepted that jurisdictional error would be established if the AAT did not genuinely take into account the question of general deterrence as required by Direction 21: see the primary Judge's decision at [21]; and the discussion by Rares J in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1758 ; (2008) 176 FCR 153 at 181---182 [105]-[107], and by the Full Court in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2009] FCAFC 23 ; (2009) 175 FCR 201 at 242 [267] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 837" id="cs12">The CEO had to make a recommendation based on a report that correctly addressed the criteria upon which the Minister could made a declaration affecting an existing notice for the purposes of the Act and the Dumping Duty Act under s 269ZDB(1). Central to the purposes of the Act and the Dumping Duty Act was the present and likely future impact on the Australian industry of importation of the relevant goods at the time of the review. Here, there was no suggestion that Siam's dumping had caused any injury to Qenos in the review period. One question for the Minister to consider was whether he was satisfied that importation of the dumped product by Siam had caused, was then causing or threatening to cause material injury to the Australian industry as s 269TG(2)(b) required. The Minister (and the CEO in preparing the report under s 269ZDA(1)) had first, to take into account the criteria in s 269TG(2) and, secondly, to give weight to his or her conclusions on those criteria, as fundamental elements in making a declaration under s 269ZDB(1). In that way, the initial justification for the s 269TG(2) declaration would be revisited by the Minister having regard to the up-to-date information ascertained in the review process under Div 5 of Pt XVB and the purposes of the Act and the Dumping Duty Act would be addressed appropriately by him in making the relevant choice in a declaration under s 269ZDB(1)(a): R v Hunt; Ex parte Sean Investments Pty Ltd [1979] HCA 32 ; (1979) 180 CLR 322 at 329 per Mason J (with whom Gibbs J agreed); Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1758 ; (2008) 107 ALD 474 at 501-503 [103] - [112] where I discussed the principles. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 838" id="cs13">No other reason supported the conclusion that the threat of material injury to Qenos would be caused by Siam's dumping (or dumping of Thai exports) alone if the measures were allowed to expire. The material in Report 137 was inadequate to establish that the CEO and the Minister had considered what was shown in confidential appendix 7 as undercutting, in accordance with s 269TAE(2), by not attributing any factor other than dumping as being likely to cause material injury. They took the undercutting itself into account as material establishing the likelihood of a threat of material injury. But, that material begged questions, that were left unanswered, as to why the differences in price appeared and what injury was likely to be caused. Because of this inadequacy, the CEO and the Minister did not, in fact, have sufficient material on which to be satisfied that expiration of the measures would be likely to lead to a threat of material injury to Qenos caused by Siam's dumping: see Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1758 ; (2008) 107 ALD 474 at 518-519 [180] - [182] where I examined the authorities; R v Australian Stevedoring Industry Board; Ex parte Melbourne Stevedoring Company Pty Ltd (1953) 188 CLR 100 at 120 per Dixon CJ, Williams, Webb and Fullagar JJ. As I said there ( Telstra 107 ALD 502 at 107):
 "[107] Where a decision-maker must consider matters prescribed by law, generally, he or she cannot jettison or ignore some of those factors or give them cursory consideration only in order to put them to one side: East Australian Pipeline Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2007) 233 CLR 229 ; 239 ALR 50 ; 97 ALD 274 ; 63 ACSR 404 ; [2007] HCA 44 at [52] ( East Australian Pipeline ) per Gleeson CJ, Heydon and Crennan JJ. As Gummow and Hayne JJ, in concurring observed ( East Australian Pipeline at [102]):

 [102] ... It was not enough for the ACCC to say in its final determination that it had considered those matters in the sense of having looked at but discarded them ..."

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 68" id="cs14">
 These appeals raise a narrow but important point of statutory construction arising out of orders pronounced and reasons published by Rares J on 24 November 2008 ( Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1758). On that date his Honour made the following declaration and orders:
THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

 1. The final determination made by the first respondent under s 152CP of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) on 30 November 2007 in relation the access dispute notified by the second respondent on 21 September 2006 was invalid.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 528" id="cs15">Often the three primary considerations in Direction No 21 will tend in different directions. The best interests of a visa holder's child may often be to remain with his or her parent, while the protection of the Australian community or its expectations may tend in the other direction. As I said in Telstra [2008] FCA 1758 at [110], in the context of ordinary principles of administrative decision-making, where fundamental weight must be given to a particular factor or factors, the requirement is that the decision-maker treat consideration of the factors, as opposed to the factors themselves, is a central element in the deliberative process. It will be in this manner that he or she will give appropriate weight to those factors. I am of opinion that par 2.17 permits the decision-maker to accommodate such an interpretation. It refers to other 11 factors that, where relevant, it may be appropriate for the decision-maker to take into account, but as par 2.17 continued, it was the government's view that:
 "... generally they be given less individual weight than that given to the primary considerations. "

  In Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40 ; (1986) 162 CLR 24 at 41, Mason J explained that in the absence of any statutory indication of the weight to be given to various considerations, it was generally for the decision-maker and not the Court to determine the appropriate weight to be given to the matters that are required to be taken into account in exercising a statutory power. But he said that the Court could set aside an administrative decision which had failed to give adequate weight to a relevant factor of great importance, or had given excessive weight to a relevant factor of no importance. Mason J cautioned that the preferred ground on which that judicial power was to be exercised was that the decision was "manifestly unreasonable". I discussed the principles applicable to a statutory duty of, or requirement for, a decision-maker to take into account or to have regard to factors in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1758 at [103] - [112]. When the expression "regard must be had to" or like expressions are used in a statute in respect of a particular criterion or factor to be considered by a decision-maker, he or she is bound to treat such a factor as a central or fundamental element in the making of the relevant decision: Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2009] FCAFC 23 at [267] per Jacobson, Lander and Foster JJ applying Telstra [2008] FCA 1758 at [103] - [112].  In Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40 ; (1986) 162 CLR 24 at 41, Mason J explained that in the absence of any statutory indication of the weight to be given to various considerations, it was generally for the decision-maker and not the Court to determine the appropriate weight to be given to the matters that are required to be taken into account in exercising a statutory power. But he said that the Court could set aside an administrative decision which had failed to give adequate weight to a relevant factor of great importance, or had given excessive weight to a relevant factor of no importance. Mason J cautioned that the preferred ground on which that judicial power was to be exercised was that the decision was "manifestly unreasonable". I discussed the principles applicable to a statutory duty of, or requirement for, a decision-maker to take into account or to have regard to factors in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1758 at [103] - [112]. When the expression "regard must be had to" or like expressions are used in a statute in respect of a particular criterion or factor to be considered by a decision-maker, he or she is bound to treat such a factor as a central or fundamental element in the making of the relevant decision: Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2009] FCAFC 23 at [267] per Jacobson, Lander and Foster JJ applying Telstra [2008] FCA 1758 at [103] - [112]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 431" id="cs16"/>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 23" id="cs17">When the expression "... regard must be had to ... " is used in a statute in respect of a particular criterion or factor to be considered by a decision maker, the decision maker is bound to treat such a factor as a central or fundamental element in the making of the relevant decision (see the discussion of these principles by Rares J in Telstra Corp Ltd v ACCC [2008] FCA 1758 at [103] to [112]).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1938" id="cs18">44 The tribunal was obliged to identify the evidence on which its finding of "considerable relaxation of the one child policy" was based pursuant to s 430(1)(d) of the Act. It did not make a jurisdictional error merely by failing to identify the evidence on which that finding was based. However, a decision-maker must give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of the case: Khan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1987] FCA 457 ; (1987) 14 ALD 291 at 292 per Gummow J; see also Telstra Corporation Ltd v ACCC [2008] FCA 1758 at [106] where I collected the authorities.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1909" id="cs19">32 In Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451 at 462C-D, Black CJ said that where a decision-maker was required to consider material, the process of consideration "... involves an active intellectual process" directed at the subject matter: see too per Burchett J at 476F-477E, per Kiefel J at 495F-G; Tobacco Institute of Australia v National Health  Medical Research Council (1996) 71 FCR 265 at 277G per Finn J and Australian Retailers Association v Reserve Bank of Australia [2005] FCA 1707 ; (2005) 148 FCR 446 at 577 [526] per Weinberg J. A decision-maker must consider the matters prescribed by law, and generally he or she cannot jettison or ignore some of those factors or give them cursory consideration only in order to put them to one side: East Australian Pipeline Pty Limited v ACCC [2007] HCA 44 ; (2007) 233 CLR 229 at 244 [52] per Gleeson CJ, Heydon and Crennan JJ. Gummow and Hayne JJ, in concurring, observed ( East Australian Pipeline 233 CLR at 256 [102]):
 "It was not enough for the ACCC to say in its final determination that it had considered those matters in the sense of having looked at but discarded them. "
See too Telstra Corporation [2008] FCA 1758 at [106] ---[107] per myself.  31 A decision-maker must give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of the case Khan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1987] FCA 457 ; (1987) 14 ALD 291 at 292 per Gummow J; Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWCA 167 ; (2001) 51 NSWLR 589 at 601 [62] where Spigelman CJ collected the authorities; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30 ; (2001) 206 CLR 323 at 367 [138] per Kirby J; NAJT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 134 ; (2005) 147 FCR 51 at 92, 93 [212] per Madgwick J and 96 [229] per Conti J; Telstra Corporation Ltd v ACCC [2008] FCA 1758 at [106] per myself. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l2">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 15AB Use of extrinsic material in the interpretation of an Act</title>
<title id="l3">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 25D Content of statements of reasons for decisions</title>
<title id="l4">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 46 Construction of instruments</title>
<title id="l5">TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>