Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 759">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 759">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 759">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 759">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FMCA 759">application for review of rrt decision affirming decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FMCA 759">applicant is a citizen of china</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FMCA 759">no jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">szbyr v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants were refused a visa under s 36(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants gave a statutory declaration to the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a visa partly on the basis of discrepancies between the statutory declaration and the appellants' oral evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief was available to the appellants.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">s 424a of the act , read with s 441a , requires that an applicant be given written notice of particulars of any information that would be a reason or a part of the reason for affirming a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether s 424a applied to the appellants' statutory declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">temporal scope of s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal breached s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether "information" included discrepancies or inadequacies in previously submitted evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "reason, or a part of the reason".  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">certiorari and mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">impact of discretionary considerations governing availability of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief should be denied on discretionary grounds for lack of a convention nexus.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">reliance on 'country information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether tribunal can use such information in assessing credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether such information the sole basis for tribunal's findings as to credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">tribunal's duty to look at reasonably foreseeable future</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether subsequent developments can be relied on to vitiate tribunal's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether sufficient opportunity to deal with country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether tribunal biased</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">re the minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte durairajasingham  immigration law and administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee review tribunal decision refusing to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">application in original jurisdiction of high court for prerogative relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations and evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to consider all available inferences from evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether s 430(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth) required the tribunal to refer to evidence contrary to its findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether a breach of s 430(1) amounts to a jurisdictional error grounding prerogative relief.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">role of the high court under the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">extent of high court's jurisdiction to grant certiorari pursuant to s 75(v) of the constitution .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">decision to refuse application for resident status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">whether decision unreasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">when and on what grounds factual errors may be reviewed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">what material decision-maker must consider in application for entry permit.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">de facto marraige alleged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">whether "some basis" to reject permanence of relationship.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">grounds on which further appellate court will interfere with intermediate court's exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 297">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 297">" information " communicated orally during tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 297">identification of the " information " communicated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 297">context within which " information " appears</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 297">need to provide " clear particulars " of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 297">need to advise applicant he can seek additional time to comment or respond</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1179">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1179">section 424a(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1179">country information excluded by s.424a(3)(a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1179">tribunal not required to disclose its thought processes or deliberations for comment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1179">"obvious and natural" appraisal of matters considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1179">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1179">s.422b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1179">no duty to enquire</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1179">bias not established.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 650">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 650">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 650">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 650">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 650">application for review of rrt decision affirming decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 650">applicant is a citizen of china claiming fear of persecution for reason of religion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 650">credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 650">no reviewable error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 631">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 631">persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 631">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 631">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 631">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 631">refusal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 631">s.424aa does not create any notification obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 631">s.424aa is an optional method by which tribunal may discharge its s.424a obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 631">court cannot review merits of visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 631">tribunal under no duty to make enquiries.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 558">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 558">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 558">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 558">applicants claiming persecution in china</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 558">principal applicant not believed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 558">no reviewable error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 558">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 537">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 537">whether appellants' father acted as common law guardian</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 537">whether information provided by appellants' father was information for purpose of s 424a of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 537">whether letter sent to appellants' father was information provided to the appellants for purposes of s 424a(2) of migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 537">whether jurisdictional error to provide information for purposes of s 424a(1) of the migration act if information not required to be provided   migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 537">whether tribunal intended to use discretionary provision of s 424aa of migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 537">whether 'information' is the same for s 424a and s 424aa of migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 537">whether information had to be provided to appellants   migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 537">whether a further ground of review that was not expressly made was apparent on evidence before tribunal   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 537">whether to refer an appeal from a migration decision of the federal magistrates court of australia to a full bench of the full federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 537">s 25(1aa)(b) of federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 471">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 471">review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 471">s.424a must first be engaged before a failure to comply with s.424aa will amount to jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 471">s.424a not engaged in relation to information that fell within exceptions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 471">tribunal elected to comply with s.424aa in relation to other information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 471">tribunal complied with s.424aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 471">inconsistencies and implausibilities not "information" for the purposes of s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 471">no failure to ensure that applicant understood why information was relevant as far as was "reasonably practicable"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 471">no failure to comply with s.425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 471">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">citing from="[2009] FMCA 471">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 46">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 46">interpretation of s 424aa of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 46">whether failure on the part of the refugee review tribunal to comply with s 424aa once it chooses to provide oral particulars of information at a review hearing constitutes jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 46">the tribunal has a discretion whether or not to invoke the provisions of s 424aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 46">a decision not to invoke s 424aa or non-compliance with the requirements of that section once invoked does not amount to jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 46">obiter dicta to the contrary by driver fm in szltc v minister for immigration and citizenship [2008] fmca 384 not followed and disapproved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 46">whether country information is information within the meaning of s 424aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 46">country information not information within s 424aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 46">in the instant case the tribunal complied with s 424aa in any event</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 46">the tribunal was not obliged to consider the " what if i'm wrong test " (as to which see minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v rajalingam [1999] fca 719 ; (1999) 93 fcr 220)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 46">for this reason, error in the application of that test would not matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 46">the tribunal's conclusions in respect of relocation were an independent and additional basis for its decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 46">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 271">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 271">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 271">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 271">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 271">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 296">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 296">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 296">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 296">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 233">the under the first heading "practice and procedure" should be replaced to read as follows:  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 233">application for extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 233">special reasons required to show why the appeal should be permitted to proceed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 233">explanation given for the delay perfunctory and incomplete</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 233">question of extension of time determined by reference to the merits of the appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 233">no prospect of appeal succeeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 233">application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 180">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 180">review of rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 180">where applicant's evidence contained inconsistencies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 180">whether this constituted "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 180">relationship between s.424a and s.424aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 180">quality of translation considered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 167">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 167">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 167">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 167">appeal from judgment of federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 167">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 167">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 139">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 139">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 139">appeal from the federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 139">whether the refugee review tribunal complied with the requirements of s 424aa of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 83">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 83">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 90">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 90">no reasonable apprehension of bias in decision of the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 90">tribunal's disbelief of applicant's evidence not "information" within s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 90">meaning of "information" in s 424aa of the migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 90">no procedural unfairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 8">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 8">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 8">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 8">applicant claiming persecution in china because of "personal beliefs"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 8">claims detailed before the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 8">factual claims generally accepted but applicant not otherwise believed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 8">whether the tribunal overlooked relevant material or breached s.424a of the migration act 1958 (cth) considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 8">whether the tribunal's rejection of the applicant's credibility was open to it considered given that the tribunal appeared to accept the factual bases for the applicant's claims.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">apprehended bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">prejudgment administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">failure to provide transcript and recordings to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">appellant already possessed transcript and recordings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">inquisitional process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">tribunal not obliged to play recordings of previous hearings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">no breach evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">discretion to refuse evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">evidence relevant to issue in dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">discretion miscarried practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">whether to allow evidence outside time for filing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.14">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">need to adjourn final hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.15">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">case management</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.16">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">principles of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.17">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">justice prevails over breach of court order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1647">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1647">chinese applicant claiming persecution for falun gong activities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1647">disbelieved by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1647">no procedural unfairness established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1647">no breach of s.91r(3) arising from references to conduct in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1647">no other jurisdictional error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1647">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1686">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1686">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1686">whether bias or breach of ss.424a or 425 of the migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1686">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1686">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1609">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1609">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1609">indian applicant claiming political and religious persecution as member of bjp in gujurat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1609">tribunal found that state protection would be available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1609">no jurisdictional breach of procedures under s.424aa or 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1609">no other jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1609">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1572">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1572">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1572">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1572">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1509">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1509">persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1509">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1509">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1509">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1509">refusal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1509">no obligation to notify information falling within s.424a(3) of the migration act 1958 if oral notification of information is made under s.424aa of that act.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1547">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1547">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1547">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1547">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1543">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1543">application to review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1543">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1543">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1487">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1487">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1487">chinese applicant claiming persecution for political activities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1487">disbelieved by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1487">no breach of ss.424a or 424aa established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1487">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1487">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1218">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1218">judicial review of decision of refugee review tribunal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1219">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1219">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1219">protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1219">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1219">application for judicial review of decision of refugee review tribunal affirming decision not to grant protection visa.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1386">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1386">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1386">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1386">applicant claiming religious persecution in china</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1386">applicant not believed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1386">whether the tribunal breached ss.424aa or 91r (3) of the migration act 1958 (cth) considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1386">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1397">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1397">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1397">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1397">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1298">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1298">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1298">chinese applicant claiming persecution as underground roman catholic</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1298">disbelieved by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1298">no breach of ss.424a or 424aa established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1298">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1298">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1262">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1262">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1262">refusal of protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1262">applicant claiming political persecution in china</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1262">applicant not believed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1262">applicant's wife giving evidence at the tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1262">whether applicant's wife making her own protection visa claims considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1262">no reviewable error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1262">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1190">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1190">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1190">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1190">applicant claiming persecution in thailand due to fear of her former boyfriend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1190">whether the tribunal breached s.424a of the migration act 1958 (cth) considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1190">observations on the interpretation of s.424aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1190">no reviewable error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1190">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 297" id="cs0">Section 424A , it will be noted, is expressed in mandatory terms --- the Tribunal " must " do those things there specified; s 424AA(a) conveys a discretionary power --- the Tribunal " may " give the " clear particulars " there referred to orally to an applicant ( SZLXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 at [24] , [2008] FCA 1270 ; 103 ALD 589 at 593) and, if it does so, s 424AA(b) then uses the mandatory term " must ". In this way s 424AA(b) attempts to ensure that the " information " communicated orally rather than in writing can be meaningfully addressed. Section 424AA(b)(i) , it will be noted, is not an obligation of perfection; it is an obligation to ensure " as far as is reasonable practicable " that an applicant understands the relevance of the " information " in question.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1179" id="cs1"/>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 911" id="cs2">The basis upon which the second Tribunal decision was challenged before the Federal Magistrates Court was apprehended bias on the part of the Tribunal. In this Court that ground is not repeated in the notice of appeal. Rather the notice of appeal contains two grounds which are as follows: His Honour erred in failing to find that the Second Respondent failed to take into account relevant considerations.
Particulars

(a) The Second Respondent failed to consider whether or not the Appellant, by reason of his status as a repatriated asylum seeker, member of the ethnic majority belonged to a particular social group for the purposes of the Convention. His Honour, bound by authorities of this Court, erred in failing to find that the Second Respondent breached section 424AA of the Migration Act and in failing to find that the Second Respondent's breach of section 424AA gave rise to jurisdictional error.
Particulars

(a) The Appellant asserts that a number of matters decided by this Court were wrongly decided in relation to this point, including, but not limited to SZLXI v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 1270 and SZLWI v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 1330.  As to ground 2, there are decisions of judges of this Court in respect of s 424AA which hold that the extending of an oral invitation to provide information in response to particulars furnished by the Tribunal is permissive, rather than a matter of obligation. See SZLXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 ; (2008) 103 ALD 589 ; and SZLWI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1330 ; (2008) 171 FCR 134. The ground of appeal invites me not to follow those decisions. I would only do that if I were persuaded that they are clearly wrong. On its face, the language of s 424AA is eloquent in the contrast between the use of the word "may" in para (a), and the use of the word "must" in para (b). As a matter of construction, it seems to me that para (a) of s 424AA is, indeed, permissive. I am not persuaded, on the basis of that examination, that either of the decisions mentioned should not be followed. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 650" id="cs3">It was further submitted, however, that the Tribunal did put information about inconsistencies to the Applicant in accordance with the provisions of s.424AA of the Act. The Minister referred to the decision of SZLQD v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [7] and SZLXI v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [8] . The submission is that the Tribunal complied with s.424AA and did not fall into error on that basis. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 631" id="cs4">Although the second ground in the application refers to s.424AA as having been breached, in truth it is an allegation that the Tribunal did not comply with the obligations it had under s.424A. This allegation is particularised by reference to the particulars of the first allegation made in the application. Those particulars are: (i) information concerning Christians in China; RRT decision page 10-12 of 15 para 39-44; (ii) information contained in the Applicant's daughter's passport; a translated copy of the Applicant's daughter's birth certificate with her father's name (the Applicant's husband's name) also a translated copy of the applicant's marriage certificate with her husband's name spelt in English. (iii) information contained in the applicant's protection visa application related Applicant claim that she was a member of a house church in China and that she personally feared persecution in China for that reason and a letter from Victor Yzung, B.Min, J.P (senior pastor) to the extent that SZLXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 suggests that information and particulars (a) and (b) do not fall within s.424AA. It is wrongly decided.  As to the allegation that SZLXI v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 was wrongly decided, I do not agree and said so in SZMMP v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FMCA 1509. My decision was affirmed on appeal by Lander J whose decision enjoyed the approval of the Full Court of the Federal Court in SZMCD's case . I do not agree that SXLXI's case was wrongly decided but, even if I did, I am bound by the Full Court's finding that it was correct: SZMCD's case at [133]. Failing to take relevant considerations into account and illogicality
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 558" id="cs5">As the Tribunal has a complete discretion to invoke the provisions of s 424AA , it was not necessary for the Tribunal to comply with section 424AA. Finally, non compliance with the provision (even if embarked upon) would likely not amount to jurisdictional error in any event: see SZMCD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCAFC 46 per Tracey and Foster JJ at [103] --- [104], Moore J agreeing at [1]. [15] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 537" id="cs6">If the former were the case and the Tribunal did not intend to activate the discretionary notification procedure contained in s 424AA, the Tribunal was merely discharging its obligations under s 425: see SZLXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 ; (2008) 103 ALD 589 at [24] . Section 424AA is engaged only where the Tribunal clearly elects to exercise its discretion by following the procedure specified in that section. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 471" id="cs7">There are a large number of authorities to support the above. (See SZMMP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 233 per Lander J at [63], and also SZLXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 per Cowdroy J, SZMAE v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1701 per Edmonds J, SZITH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1866 per Middleton J, SZLWI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1330 per Gilmour J and SZLML v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 83 per Jaggot J, cited in SZMMP at [63] and in SZMCD at [98]. See also SZLQD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 739 at [99] . ) </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 46" id="cs8">98 At [63] of his Honour's reasons, his Honour noted that his Honour's decision was consistent with decisions of other judges of this Court in SZLXI [2008] FCA 1270 (Cowdroy J), SZMAE [2008] FCA 1701 (Edmonds J), SZITH 105 ALD 541 , [2008] FCA 1866 (Middleton J), SZLWI [2008] FCA 1330 ; 171 FCR 134 (Gilmour J) and SZLML v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 83 (Jagot J). 48 Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the only consequence of non-compliance with the specific requirements of s 424AA is that the Tribunal does not get the benefit of the provisions of s 424A(2A). It was submitted on behalf of the first respondent that this interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions was supported by five cases in this Court, namely: SZLQD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 739 at [12] ; SZLXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 103 ALD 589 , [2008] FCA 1270 at [27] ; and SZLWI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1330 ; (2008) 171 FCR 134 at [19] ; SZMAE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1701 at [23]; and SZITH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 105 ALD 541 , [2008] FCA 1866 at [56] ---[60]. Each of those cases was decided by a single judge sitting on appeal from a Federal Magistrate. The decisions contain the views of five judges of this Court. Each authority is recent. They constitute a consistent body of recent authority.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 271" id="cs9">These sections are not activated by internal inconsistencies in an applicant's claim or by a Tribunal's doubts about those claims: SZBYR v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] HCA 26 ; (2007) 235 ALR 609 at [18] ; SZLXI v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 ; (2008) 103 ALD 589 at [25] - [28]. These sections do not apply to independent country information: VJAF v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 178 at [13] - [15]; SZLQD v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 739 at [12] . Ms Griffin submits that there was no information before the Tribunal that could trigger either s.424A or s. 424AA . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 296" id="cs10">Section.424AA provides an alternative method for the Tribunal to put to an applicant certain information in the course of a hearing. Information in s.424AA has the same meaning as in s.424A (see SZLXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another [2008] FCA 1270 ; (2008) 103 ALD 589). Cowdroy J suggested in that case (at [27] that: However, as s 424AA is merely an alternative form of notification available to the Tribunal (see s 424A(2A)) , the Court considers that the exclusions contained in s 424A(3) apply with equal force to s 424AA. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 233" id="cs11">The Federal Magistrate concluded that the applicant's submission was to particularise and expand on information which the Tribunal had paraphrased or summarised in what it put to the applicant. He concluded that whilst the Tribunal could have put what was said to be what should have been put, the Tribunal could not be criticised for summarising the information in the way that it did. For those reasons, the Federal Magistrate concluded that even if the Tribunal had an obligation to give information pursuant to s 424AA(b)(i) that it did not breach that obligation. However, the Federal Magistrate also concluded that the information in question was independent country information which the Tribunal had no obligation to notify to the applicant. He followed a decision of Cowdroy J in SZLXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 in which his Honour concluded that the exclusions contained in s 424A(3) applied with equal force to s 424AA. The Federal Magistrate concluded that that decision stood for the proposition that independent country information did not have to be provided to an applicant under s 424A(1) and s 424AA. The Federal Magistrate analysed for himself the two sections and came to the same conclusion as Cowdroy J and, in doing so, disagreed with a decision of Driver FM in SZLTC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FMCA 384 to the contrary.  The applicant's contention as to the construction in s 424AA has been considered and rejected by other members of the Court in SZLXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 (Cowdroy J), SZMAE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1701 (Edmonds J), SZITH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1866 ; (2008) 105 ALD 541 (Middleton J), SZLWI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1330 (Gilmour J) and SZLML v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 83 (Jagot J). Although the reasons in those cases may not be as these reasons, I agree in the results. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 180" id="cs12">The first thing that a Tribunal has to do is to decide whether or not there is any "information" and it is only if such information exists that these sections come into play. The "information" which the applicant describes in this particular case is information about inconsistencies. In SZLXI v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2008] FCA 1270 , Cowdroy J sitting on appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court states at [26]: "The Tribunal found that there were inconsistencies in the appellant's evidence. Scarlett FM noted that it was well established that inconsistencies in evidence did not constitute "information" for the purposes of s.424A of the Act (see SZBYR  Anor v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship  Anor [2007] HCA 26 ; (2007) 235 ALR 609 at [18] ) and accordingly do not constitute "information" for the purposes of s.424AA. [27] ...</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 167" id="cs13">Moreover, the exclusions contained in s 424A(3) apply with equal force to s 424AA, therefore the Tribunal is not compelled to give an applicant any particulars of country information which it intends to rely on during the hearing nor information that the applicant gave for the purposes of the application for review: see s 424A(3) and SZLXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 104 ALD 589 ; [2008] FCA 1270 at [29] ---[30];. Such an inference is supported by the collective use of the term 'information' in s 424A(2A) of the Act (which applies to both ss 424A and 424AA), as such use implies uniformity of meaning. Therefore, the Court considers that what is not 'information' for the purposes of s 424A(1) of the Act is also not 'information' for the purposes of s 424A(1): SZLXI at [27]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 142" id="cs14">The Federal Magistrate found that the Tribunal did not rely on any "information" as a reason for affirming the delegate's decision and therefore s 424A(1) was not enlivened such that s 424A(2A) applied (see [2008] FMCA at [20]). His Honour relied upon: SZLXI v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270. The Federal Magistrate also found that the Tribunal had not breached s 425 of the Act as that section was interpreted by this Court in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SCAR [2003] FCAFC 126 ; (2003) 128 FCR 553 (see [2008] FMCA at [22]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 139" id="cs15">Section 424A(3) identifies material that is not 'information' to which s 424A applies. Material that is not 'information' for the purposes of s 424A of the Act is also not 'information' for the purposes of s 424AA. See SZLXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 at [27] per Cowdroy J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 83" id="cs16">The primary judge held that the information about the Communist Party of India and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) fell within s 424A(3). As s 424AA was an alternative method of complying with the obligation in s 424A the distinction between the Communist Party of India and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) to which the Tribunal referred during the hearing was not "information" within the meaning of either s 424A or s 424AA (citing SZLXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 103 ALD 589 ; [2008] FCA 1270).  Neither this Court nor the Federal Magistrates Court has jurisdiction to interfere with those findings of fact which were clearly open to the Tribunal on the evidence. Otherwise these grounds relate to an alleged denial of procedural fairness. In SZLXI (2008) 103 ALD 589 ; [2008] FCA 1270 Cowdroy J held that the exceptions in s 424A(3) must apply to s 424AA as that section is merely an alternative method of providing appellants with information. In SZMAE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1701 at [23] Edmonds J observed that:
 [23] In any event, the Minister submitted that no jurisdictional error arises. Section 424AA itself imposes no obligation upon the Tribunal. Section 424AA itself imposes no obligation upon the Tribunal. It provides an alternative means by which the Tribunal may give to the applicant 'information' that it is otherwise required to give in writing pursuant to s 424A(1) of the Act. A jurisdictional error will only arise if there is a breach of s 424A ( SZLXI v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 at [23] ---[28]; SZLWI v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1330 at [17] ---[21]; SZLQD v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 739 at [12] ). There was no 'information' for the purposes of s 424A(1) , and s 424AA was not engaged. I agree with these submissions.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 90" id="cs17">Whether this issue is approached upon the basis of a claimed contravention of section 424A(1) or section 424AA , the result is the same. There is authority for the proposition that "information" in section 424AA has the same meaning as "information" under section 424A: SZLXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 at [27] per Cowdroy J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 8" id="cs18">Counsel for the applicant also made oral submissions in which she contended, by reference to the court book and the transcript, that a particular social group claim fairly arising from the available material had not been considered in any meaningful sense by the Tribunal. Counsel also submitted "formally" that the Federal Court's interpretation of s.424AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Migration Act ") in SZLXI v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 1270 at [27] and SZLWI v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 1330 was wrong and that my interpretation of the section in SZLTC v Minister for Immigration [2008] FMCA 384 at [15] - [16] should be preferred. That was a formal submission because I am bound by the Federal Court decisions in SZLWI and SZLTC to the extent of inconsistency with my own. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1866" id="cs19">58 It has been held on a number of occasions in this Court that ss 424AA and 424A provide specifically how certain matters are to be brought to the attention of an applicant by a tribunal, and that s 424AA enables information which would need to be given in writing under s 424A to be given orally if an applicant appears before a tribunal: see SZLQD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 739 at [12] per Marshall J; SZLXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 at [27] per Cowdroy J; SZLWI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1330 ; (2008) 171 FCR 134 , 139 at [19] per Gilmour J; and SZMAE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1701 at [23] per Edmonds J.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1647" id="cs20">Moreover, I accept the submissions of the Minister's counsel that the Tribunal was under no jurisdictional obligations to follow the procedure in s.424AA. On my reading of the Tribunal's decision, there was no "information" which it relied upon as a reason for affirming the delegate's decision, and which would have given rise to a breach of its obligations under s.424A(1) if the Tribunal did not follow the procedures in s.424AA so as to cause s.424A(2A) to apply. Recent judgments in this Court have followed the judgment of Cowdroy J in SZLXI v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 , to hold that s.424AA operates only as a adjunct to s.424A(1) (see SZMDJ v Minister for Immigration [2008] FMCA 1298 at [21] and [22]). I am, therefore, not persuaded that there is any jurisdictional error made by the Tribunal in relation to s.424AA. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1837" id="cs21">The argument in reliance on s 424AA which was advanced this morning in support of the appeal was dealt with by the learned Federal Magistrate in his reasons, at [21] and [22] where his Honour said;
 '21. The second ground of the application contends that the Tribunal failed to comply with obligations under s.424AA. As counsel for the Minister points out, a recent decision of Cowdroy J in SZLXI v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court has held, in paragraphs [23]-[27], in effect, that s.424AA is not a self-standing procedural provision, such that any non-compliance gives rise to jurisdictional error vitiating a decision of the Tribunal. His Honour appears to have concluded from legislative history that the intended consequence of any non-compliance with s.424AA is only that s.424A(2A) will not apply to excuse a procedure under s.424A(1) , whether the non-compliance arises from a discretionary decision not to follow the s.424AA procedure or from defects occurring in the procedure when purportedly followed. On this construction, the s.424AA procedure operates only as an embellishment or qualification to obligations under s.424A(1).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1686" id="cs22">As stated in SZLWI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another [2008] FCA 1330 ; (2008) 171 FCR 134 at [19] , s.424AA does not impose any obligation on the Tribunal. It enables the Tribunal (if it chooses to do so) to give oral particulars of adverse information to an applicant at a hearing that may otherwise have to be given in writing under s.424A(1). If the Tribunal chooses to give oral particulars of information under s.424AA but fails to comply with the requirements of s.424AA(b) the consequence is not that it falls into jurisdictional error. Rather the consequence is that s.424A(2)(a) is not engaged. Section 424A(2)(a) exempts the Tribunal from the obligation to give written particulars of information in s.424A(1) if it has given clear particulars and invited comment or response under s.424AA. It is also relevant to note that in SZLXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another [2008] FCA 1270 ; (2008) 103 ALD 589 at [27] Cowdroy J expressed the view that while s.424AA does not contain a provision equivalent to s.424A(3) , " what is not 'information' for the purposes of s 424A(1) of the Act is also not 'information' for the purposes of s 424AA. " </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1609" id="cs23">As the Minister's Counsel submits, current authority in the Federal Court holds that the procedure under s.424AA can only give rise to jurisdictional error if s.424A(1) would have been engaged. I explained in SZMDJ v Minister for Immigration [2008] FMCA 1298: [21] The second ground of the application contends that the Tribunal failed to comply with obligations under s.424AA. As counsel for the Minister points out, a recent decision of Cowdroy J in SZLXI v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court has held, in paragraphs [23]-[27], in effect, that s.424AA is not a self-standing procedural provision, such that any non-compliance gives rise to jurisdictional error vitiating a decision of the Tribunal. His Honour appears to have concluded from legislative history that the intended consequence of any non-compliance with s.424AA is only that s.424A(2A) will not apply to excuse a procedure under s.424A(1) , whether the non-compliance arises from a discretionary decision not to follow the s.424AA procedure or from defects occurring in the procedure when purportedly followed. On this construction, the s.424AA procedure operates only as an embellishment or qualification to obligations under s.424A(1). Counsel for the Minister noted that this construction has been applied in several cases in this Court, and I consider that I should do likewise. [22] The construction has the consequence that, even if there were any failure to follow procedures described in 424AA, it would also be necessary to establish that the Tribunal's decision relied upon some piece of information which would have been required to be put to an applicant under s.424A(1) for written comment. It also means that the exclusions of s.424A(3) therefore also apply as exclusions to any jurisdictional requirement to observe s.424AA as an alternative to the procedure under s.424A(1). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1701" id="cs24">23 In any event, the Minister submitted that no jurisdictional error arises. Section 424AA itself imposes no obligation upon the Tribunal. It provides an alternative means by which the Tribunal may give to the applicant 'information' that it is otherwise required to give in writing pursuant to s 424A(1) of the Act. A jurisdictional error will only arise if there is a breach of s 424A ( SZLXI v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 at [23] --- [28], SZLWI v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1330 at [17] --- [21], SZLQD v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 739 at [12] ). There was no 'information' for the purposes of s 424A(1) , and s 424AA was not engaged. I agree with these submissions.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1572" id="cs25">The amended application contends that the Tribunal failed to comply with what is said to be a mandatory procedure prescribed by the Act, in failing to comply with s.424AA(b)(iv) of the Act. Section 424AA complements the Tribunal's obligations under s.424A. It does not impose a mandatory obligation on the Tribunal, insofar as that is contended for by the applicant. Rather, as indicated by Marshall J in SZLQD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 739 at [12], s.424AA enables the Tribunal, if it so chooses, to give to an applicant any information which the Tribunal considers would be part of the reason for affirming the decision under review orally during the hearing. It does not compel the Tribunal to give an applicant any particulars of country information which it intends to rely on during the hearing. Moreover, if information is within the exceptions to s.424A , the statutory opportunity to put " information " orally under s.424AA rather than in writing under s.424A does not apply (see SZLXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1509" id="cs26">But in any event, the information in question was independent country information which the Tribunal had no obligation to notify to the applicant. While recognising the binding effect on this Court of the decision of Cowdroy J in SZLXI v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 , the applicant reserves his position on this point for further argument on appeal. The applicant implicitly submits that the Court, were it not bound by his Honour's decision in SZLXI's case , should find that s.424A(3) does not apply to oral notifications given pursuant to s.424AA. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1547" id="cs27">I note that, when considering whether the Tribunal met its obligations under s.424AA it is now established (see SZLWI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1330 , SZLXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 , and SZMDJ v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2008] FMCA 1298) that s.424AA does not itself impose any obligation on the Tribunal, but rather enables the Tribunal, if it chooses to do so, to give oral particulars of adverse information to an application at a hearing that may otherwise need to be given in writing under s.424A. If the Tribunal chooses to do so but fails to comply with the requirements of s.424AA(b) as Gilmour J stated in SZLWI at [19] "... the consequence is not that it falls into jurisdictional error " but rather that s.424A(2A) , which exempts the Tribunal from the obligation to comply with s.424A where it has given clear particulars of the information and invited the applicant to comment under s.424AA , would not apply. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1543" id="cs28">In SZLXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 Cowdroy J observed that while s.424AA does not contain a provision equivalent to the exceptions in s.424A(3) of the Act, it " is merely an alternative form of notification available to the Tribunal . " Hence the exclusions contained in s.424A(3) apply equally to s.424AA. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1487" id="cs29">I referred to these authorities in SZMDJ v Minister for Immigration [2008] FMCA 1298: 21. The second ground of the application contends that the Tribunal failed to comply with obligations under s.424AA. As counsel for the Minister points out, a recent decision of Cowdroy J in SZLXI v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court has held, in paragraphs [23]-[27], in effect, that s.424AA is not a self-standing procedural provision, such that any non-compliance gives rise to jurisdictional error vitiating a decision of the Tribunal. His Honour appears to have concluded from legislative history that the intended consequence of any non-compliance with s.424AA is only that s.424A(2A) will not apply to excuse a procedure under s.424A(1) , whether the non-compliance arises from a discretionary decision not to follow the s.424AA procedure or from defects occurring in the procedure when purportedly followed. On this construction, the s.424AA procedure operates only as an embellishment or qualification to obligations under s.424A(1).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1218" id="cs30">In SLXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 Cowdroy J stated at paragraph 19:- "Scarlett FM found that the Tribunal's assessment of the Appellant's credibility was based upon his evidence to the Tribunal, independent country information, inconsistencies within the Appellant's own evidence and inconsistencies between his evidence and the independent country information. His Honour relied upon the decision in Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs: Ex Parte Durairajasingham [2000] HCA 1 ; (2000) 168 ALR 407 , which held that the assessment of the credibility of an applicant is a matter of fact and is a matter solely for the administrative decision maker. Scarlett FM observed that there is no basis for conducting a judicial review and interfering with the Tribunal's findings provided there is evidence upon which a credibility finding may be made. " </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1219" id="cs31">In SZLXI v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 Cowdroy J stated at paragraph 27:-
 "27. The Court observes that s.424AA of the Act does not contain an equivalent provision to s.424A(3). Section 424A(3) identifies material which is not 'information' for the purposes of the application of that section. However, as s.424AA is merely an alternative form of notification available to the Tribunal (see s.424A(2A)), the Court considers that the exclusions contained in s.424A(3) apply with equal force to s.424AA. Such inference is supported by the collective use of the term 'information' in s.424A(2A) of the Act (a subsection which applies to both ss.424A and 424AA), as such use implies uniformity of meaning. Section 424A(2A) provides:-

 '(2A) The Tribunal is not obliged under this section to give particulars of information to an applicant, nor invite the applicant to comment on or respond to the information, if the Tribunal gives clear particulars of the information to the applicant, and invites the applicant to comment on or respond to the information, under section 424AA. '

 Accordingly, the Court considers that what is not 'information' for the purposes of s.424A(1) of the Act is also not 'information' for the purposes of s.424AA. "
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1386" id="cs32">There has been no breach of s.424AA in the present case. Whilst the Tribunal indicates in its decision (at GB114-115 para. 82) that it referred to s.424AA at the hearing regarding an inconsistency in the applicant's evidence, namely the inconsistency between question 41 of his protection visa application and his oral evidence, no obligation under s.424AA arose as such an inconsistency is not " information " for the purposes of s.424AA: see SZLXI v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 1270 (Cowdroy J). The " information " that was put to the applicant (the inconsistency in his evidence) did not enliven any of the obligations in s.424AA(b). In the alternative, if the Court finds that the obligations in s.424AA were enlivened in someway, it is clear from a fair reading of the Tribunal's decision that the Tribunal Member complied with his obligations in s.424AA(b) in any event.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1397" id="cs33">In SZLXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 , Cowdroy J observed at [27] that while s.424AA does not contain an equivalent provision to s.424A(3): "[Section 424AA] is merely an alternative form of notification available to the Tribunal ". On that basis his Honour considered that the exclusions contained in s.424A(3) applied with equal force to s.424AA. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1298" id="cs34">The second ground of the application contends that the Tribunal failed to comply with obligations under s.424AA. As counsel for the Minister points out, a recent decision of Cowdroy J in SZLXI v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1270 exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court has held, in paragraphs [23]-[27], in effect, that s.424AA is not a self-standing procedural provision, such that any non-compliance gives rise to jurisdictional error vitiating a decision of the Tribunal. His Honour appears to have concluded from legislative history that the intended consequence of any non-compliance with s.424AA is only that s.424A(2A) will not apply to excuse a procedure under s.424A(1) , whether the non-compliance arises from a discretionary decision not to follow the s.424AA procedure or from defects occurring in the procedure when purportedly followed. On this construction, the s.424AA procedure operates only as an embellishment or qualification to obligations under s.424A(1). Counsel for the Minister noted that this construction has been applied in several cases in this Court, and I consider that I should do likewise. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1262" id="cs35"/>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1190" id="cs36">During the course of oral submissions, counsel for the Minister drew my attention to the very recent decision of the Federal Court in SZLXI v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 1270. At [27] of his judgment, Cowdroy J interpreted s.424AA in part on a different basis to that adopted by me in my decision of SZLTC at [16]. In particular, his Honour found that the exclusions from the obligation of disclosure in s.424A(3) applied also in relation to s.424AA notwithstanding the omission of those exclusions from s.424AA by Parliament. I accept that the Federal Court's decision in SZLXI is binding upon this Court.  During the course of oral submissions, counsel for the Minister drew my attention to the very recent decision of the Federal Court in SZLXI v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 1270. At [27] of his judgment, Cowdroy J interpreted s.424AA in part on a different basis to that adopted by me in my decision of SZLTC at [16]. In particular, his Honour found that the exclusions from the obligation of disclosure in s.424A(3) applied also in relation to s.424AA notwithstanding the omission of those exclusions from s.424AA by Parliament. I accept that the Federal Court's decision in SZLXI is binding upon this Court. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 36 Protection visas</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91R Persecution</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 359AA Information and invitation given orally by Tribunal while applicant appearing</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424AA Information and invitation given orally by Tribunal while applicant appearing</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 156">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 156">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s 45db(1) boycotts affecting trade or commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 156">concerted interference with trade or commerce involving the movement of goods between australia and places outside australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 156">exemption from liability where dominant purpose substantially related to environmental protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 156">deliberate contamination of feed for sheep intended for live export</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 156">export of all sheep delayed and export of some sheep prevented</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 156">whether primary judge correct in finding that s 45dd(3) applied to exempt perpetrator from liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 156">whether conduct intended to protect sheep from perceived suffering during live export on ship had "dominant purpose...substantially related to environmental protection"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 156">whether onus of proving or negating dominant purpose borne by party alleging contravention of general provision or on party alleging existence of dominant purpose held: appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 156">protection of sheep from harm during voyage from australia to overseas not capable of being environmental protection or substantially related to environmental protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 156">observations on onus of proof of purpose under s 45dd(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1535">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1535">boycotts affecting trade or commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1535">contamination of feed for sheep intended for live export</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1535">export of all sheep delayed and export of some sheep prevented</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1535">whether conduct prevented or substantially hindered the applicants from engaging in trade or commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1535">whether hindering encompasses causing to carry out actions to a greater extent than normally required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1535">whether trade or commerce engaged in by supplier of feed to sheep in feedlot, prior to loading of sheep onto ship, was trade or commerce involving the movement of goods between australia and places outside of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1535">whether exporter carrying on trade or commerce involving the movement of goods between australia and places outside of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1535">whether perpetrator had dominant purpose substantially related to environmental protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1535">whether environment includes sheep generally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 1535">whether onus as to dominant purpose on party alleging contravention of general provision or on party alleging existence of dominant purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1307">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1307">sufficiency of pleading of economic torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">htw valuers (central qld) pty ltd v astonland pty ltd  damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">breach of contract and negligent provision of advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">respondent relied on valuation advice from appellant in purchasing commercial premises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">risk of decline in market value of premises from competing business not taken into account in advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">whether damages assessed at date of contract to purchase premises or only once risk eventuated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">whether damages based on "true value" or "market value" of premises at date of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">whether assessment of "true value" at date of contract includes subsequent events</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">purpose of damages under trade practices act 1974 (cth), s 82.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">i  l securities pty ltd v htw valuers (brisbane) pty ltd  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">enforcement and remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">loan transaction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">mortgage over land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">misleading and deceptive valuation of land by valuer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">failure by lender to make reasonable inquiries as to borrower's capacity to meet interest payments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">default on loan by borrower</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">proceeds of sale by mortgagee insufficient to meet borrower's obligation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">liability of valuer for loss and damage suffered by lender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">causal connection between contravention of trade practices act 1974 (cth) and loss and damage suffered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">whether damages awarded under s 82 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) to be reduced for lender's failure to take reasonable care to protect its own interests.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">henville v walker  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">real estate transaction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">home unit development</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">misleading representation by land agent to developer as to price which could be obtained for residential home units</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">incorrect estimate of likely costs of development made by developer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">quantification of damages where misleading or deceptive conduct is but one of a combination of circumstances bringing about the loss ultimately suffered.  damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">statutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">measure of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">relevance of common law analogies when quantifying damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">identification of loss or damage required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">causation of loss or damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">quantification of damage caused "by conduct of" person in breach of s 52.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">michael marks  ors v gio australia holdings limited  ors  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">measure of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">whether analogous with damages in tort or contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">distinction between "expectation" and "reliance" loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">whether loss or damage suffered or likely to be suffered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">whether damage caused "by conduct of" defendant.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">trade practices (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">action for damages to be commenced within three years after cause of action accrued</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">conduct inducing giving of indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">accrual of cause of action to indemnifier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">trade practices act 1974(cth), s. 82.  federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">barred cause of action introduced by amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">whether permitted by rules of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">trade practices act 1974(cth), s. 82(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">federal court of australia act 1976(cth), s. 86</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">federal court rules 1979(cth), o. 13, r. 2(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 437">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 437">damages under part v of the trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 437">whether reliance is necessary pre-condition for award of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 437">whether competitor who suffers damage arising from contravention but has not relied on the contravening conduct is entitled to damages.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">exclusive dealing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">brewer selling beer to retailers on delivered basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">requirement of delivery by particular carrier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">contract between carrier and brewer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">whether retailer "acquires" carrier's services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">contract for supply of goods and services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">whether third line forcing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 4(1) , 4c, 47 (1), (6), (7).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1982] FCA 210">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1982] FCA 210">resale price maintenance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1982] FCA 210">measure of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1982] FCA 210">whether allowance should be made for income tax.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1982] FCA 210">resale price maintenance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1982] FCA 210">pecuniary penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1982] FCA 210">measure of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1982] FCA 210">method of calculation of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1982] FCA 210">whether miscalculations in assessment of profits, income tax allowance and amount of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1982] FCA 210">principles to be applied in calculating damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1982] FCA 210">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 48 , 76 , 77 , 82 , 83 ; income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), s. 25.  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1982] FCA 210">whether allowance for income tax in damages award had been correctly calculated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[1982] FCA 210">whether tax losses should have been taken into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[1982] FCA 210">whether incidence of tax should have been ignored in award of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[1982] FCA 210">whether award of damages was included in assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">cited from="[1982] FCA 210">whether court was required to determine question of liability of tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">cited from="[1982] FCA 210">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), s. 25. following the judgment on 23 april 1983 of a single judge of the federal court of australia (the court), the trade practices commission had recovered from the appellant company simpson ltd (formerly known as simpson pope ltd) (the appellant) a pecuniary penalty under ss. 76 and 77 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) (the act) by reason of contraventions by the appellant of the provisions of s. 48 of the act relating to the practice of resale price maintenance. pursuant to s. 82 of the act, the respondent company hubbards pty ltd recovered damages of $52,373 being the sums of $49,477 plus $13,330, totalling $62,807, less a discount in respect of income tax of $10,434.  the appellant appealed and the respondent cross-appealed to the full court against the assessment of damages which had been calculated having regard to the "lost sales" of simpson products over a specified period. in calculating the net profit on sales the learned trial judge had made a deduction to allow for an expected increase in bankcard charges and a reduction attributable to notional sales other than simpson products referable to the bankcard component in sales by the respondent. the appellant contended that the overall award was excessive and submitted, inter alia, that the learned trial judge had erred in calculating the net profit on sales; that a reduction attributable to notional sales of other than simpson products referable to the bankcard component had not been allowed; that, while the learned trial judge had correctly made some allowance for income tax in respect of the damages awarded, a full allowance of forty-six per cent should have been allowed, rather than taking into account tax losses; and that the overall award was excessive.  the respondent submitted that the incidence of tax should have been ignored in the award of damages contending that, if the amount was assessable, this could have been determined elsewhere and having regard to the state of profit or losses which existed at the relevant time of receipt.  held: (1) the learned trial judge was justified, on the evidence before him, in treating the damages to be awarded for loss of profit in the calendar year 1979 as probably assessable income within the meaning of s. 25 of the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth). the commissioner of taxation was not a party and, in view of the concession made by the appellant the full court was not required to finally determine the question of liability of tax.  stoke-on-trent city council v. wood mitchell  co. ltd (1980) 1 wlr 254 , referred to.  (2) the basic principle which was applicable was that damages were compensatory. if the damages were taxable in this case it followed that, if forty-six per cent were deducted from the calculation and the balance only awarded as damages, this balance would be taxable in the hands of the respondent at forty-six per cent. in other words, the respondent would in effect, if the damages were taxable, be taxed at twice the rate of forty-six per cent and the commissioner of taxation would be deprived of part of the tax he might have received, the benefit of this being passed to the appellant. in addition, it would have meant that the respondent would not have been properly compensated for its loss.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1982] FCA 57">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1982] FCA 57">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1982] FCA 57">respondent supplies electrical goods to distributors and retailers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1982] FCA 57">applicant conducts discount retail shops</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1982] FCA 57">applicant seeks damages pursuant to s. 82 of the act based on simpson having engaged in the practice of resale price maintenance contrary to s. 48 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1982] FCA 57">whether casual connection required between the conduct constituting the contravention and the loss or damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1982] FCA 57">whether to apply principles of tort or of contract in assessing damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1982] FCA 57">whether court has power to award interest in respect of damages as part of the judgment.  trade practices act 1974 (cth.) ss. 48 , 82  supreme court act 1935 (s.a.) s. 30 c  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1982] FCA 57">resale price maintenance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1982] FCA 57">loss or damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1982] FCA 57">loss of sales of respondent's products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1982] FCA 57">other products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[1982] FCA 57">assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[1982] FCA 57">whether applicable principles contract or tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">cited from="[1982] FCA 57">interest on damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.15">cited from="[1982] FCA 57">effect of accelerated tax losses on damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.16">cited from="[1982] FCA 57">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 48 , 82 , 83</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.17">cited from="[1982] FCA 57">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s. 79. the applicant was a discount retailer selling a wide range of goods including electrical goods supplied by the respondent. the applicant traded continuously with the respondent on a large scale for many years until the respondent unilaterally closed the account. the trade practices commission brought proceedings in the federal court of australia alleging that the respondent had engaged in the practice of resale price maintenance contrary to the trade practices act 1974 , s. 48. the court found that the respondent had contravened s. 48 and imposed a pecuniary penalty. the applicant then brought proceedings pursuant to s. 82 alleging that it had suffered loss or damage by the conduct of the respondent and sought to recover such loss or damage from the respondent.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>