Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">szfde v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal") affirmed a decision refusing the appellants' application for protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">the appellants did not attend the tribunal hearing as a result of fraudulent advice given by a purported registered migration agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">whether there was fraud "by" or "on" the tribunal.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">inquisitorial process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">distinction between tribunal process and inter partes litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">whether fraud practised by an agent upon the applicants for a protection visa subverted the operation of div 4 of pt 7 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">whether this fraud led to the jurisdiction of the tribunal remaining constructively unexercised.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">mandamus and certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">availability of constitutional writs in cases of fraud.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">szbel v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">protection visa decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant claimed he feared persecution on basis of his conversion to christianity if returned to iran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">delegate of the first respondent refused to grant appellant protection visa because not satisfied of the genuineness of appellant's conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">review by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant invited by tribunal to give evidence relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant gave evidence addressed to the delegate's concern regarding the genuineness of his conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa on the basis that appellant's claims were not credible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether tribunal failed to notify the appellant adequately of the issues to which its reasoning processes were directed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether failure of tribunal to ask the appellant to address issues that it considered might be important amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">applicant claimed to be suffering from procrastination and other psychological impairments when he gave evidence at a hearing before the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">the tribunal rejected this evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">whether the tribunal fell into jurisdictional error by not complying with s 425 of the migration act 1958 (cth)  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">hearsay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">factual findings of an administrative tribunal contained within its reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">admissible for non-hearsay purpose in judicial proceedings to prove the reasons of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">subsequently admissible to prove the truth of the findings via s 60(1) evidence act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1299">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1299">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1299">applicant suffering mental impairments at hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1299">impairments established by evidence not before tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1299">whether applicant denied real and meaningful opportunity to give his evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1299">tribunal assessed his evidence upon false assumptions about his mental capacities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1299">jurisdictional error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1299">matter remitted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 972">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 972">application for review of rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 972">applicant citizen of india</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 972">where applicant claimed to be member of radical youth league</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 972">where tribunal did not find applicant to be credible witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 972">where applicant alleges standard of interpretation deficient but provides no evidence by way of transcript</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 972">where grounds of review not particularised.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 813">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 813">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 813">whether inaccurate or deficient interpretation at tribunal hearing such as to establish breach of s.425 of the migration act.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 582">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 582">application to review decision of the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 582">whether tribunal failed to comply with s.425 of the migration act by not providing an interpreter for the primary applicant at the tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 582">whether tribunal failed to consider an integer of the applicant's claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 582">whether breach of s.424a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 432">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 432">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 432">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 432">applicant claiming political persecution in india</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 432">applicant not believed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 432">whether the tribunal breached ss.424 or 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth) considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 432">whether the tribunal erred in its consideration of corroborative documents considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 432">no reviewable error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 432">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 341">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 341">application to review decision of the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 341">whether failure to make necessary findings or to apply the law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 341">whether lack of good faith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 341">whether findings illogical or unreasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 341">whether jurisdictional error in relation to interpreter provided at the tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 341">whether actual or apprehended bias.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 180">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 180">review of rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 180">where applicant's evidence contained inconsistencies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 180">whether this constituted "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 180">relationship between s.424a and s.424aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 180">quality of translation considered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 109">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 109">application for review of rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 109">where applicant does not particularise grounds of application.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1434">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1434">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1434">difficulty finding interpreter for applicant's indian dialect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1434">hearing adjourned to next day</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1434">applicant failed to attend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1434">whether reasonable excuse for absence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1434">notice of adjournment unreasonable in circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1434">matter remitted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1270">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1270">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1270">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1270">applicant claiming religious persecution in china</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1270">applicant not believed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1270">tribunal disregarding applicant's conduct in australia pursuant to s.91r(3) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1270">whether the tribunal erred in taking into account the motivation for that conduct considered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 744">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 744">review of decision of rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 744">no point of principle.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 789">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 789">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 789">applicant to make out his case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 789">inquisitorial functions of tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 789">alleged inadequate translation service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 789">no denial of opportunity to present case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 789">onus on applicant in judicial review proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 789">onus not discharged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 462">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 462">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 462">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 462">applicant claiming political and religious persecution in india</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 462">tribunal finding applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution by reference to country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 462">whether the tribunal breached s.425 of the migration act 1958 (cth) considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 462">applicant seeking opportunity to comment on country information referred to at tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 462">tribunal supplying partially inaudible sound recording of the hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 462">tribunal failing to offer alternative means of dealing with the country information referred to</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">citing from="[2008] FMCA 462">tribunal apparently extending an invitation to comment but not providing the means to do so</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">citing from="[2008] FMCA 462">jurisdictional error established.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 41" id="cs0">Instead, the learned Federal Magistrate reasoned this way:
 In my opinion, SCAR stands as binding authority for an underlying principle going beyond the issue of fitness to "represent himself before the Tribunal" on the day of a hearing, which was raised by the facts of that case (see [13]-[16] and [40]-[41]). The broader foundation of the Full Court's decision is pointed to by the analogous circumstances that their Honours identify in [37] above. These include categories of jurisdictional error where a substantial error of translation has prevented the applicant meaningfully communicating his evidence to the Tribunal, where it assessed his evidence upon false assumption as to his evidence, and where this materially affected the outcome (see authorities such as Perera v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507 ; (1999) 92 FCR 6 , VWFY v Minster for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1723 , M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212 , SZGYM v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1923 , and SZJBD v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2009] FCAFC 106 at [73]). Plainly, such a jurisdictional error affecting a hearing of a Tribunal does not usually, if ever, have the drastic and irremediable effects which concerned Branson J. The important consideration of fairness, which in my opinion the Full Court's judgment in SCAR points to, is that a significant impairment to communication at a hearing arising from language or mental state should be taken into account by the Tribunal when assessing the person's evidence, and that the Tribunal should not make its decision based upon a false assumption that the impairment did not exist.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1299" id="cs1">In my opinion, SCAR stands as binding authority for an underlying principle going beyond the issue of fitness to "represent himself before the Tribunal" on the day of a hearing, which was raised by the facts of that case (see [13]-[16] and [40]-[41]). The broader foundation of the Full Court's decision is pointed to by the analogous circumstances that their Honours identify in [37] above. These include categories of jurisdictional error where a substantial error of translation has prevented the applicant meaningfully communicating his evidence to the Tribunal, where it assessed his evidence upon false assumptions as to his evidence, and where this materially affected the outcome (see authorities such as Perera v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507 ; (1999) 92 FCR 6 , VWFY v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1723 , M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212 , SZGYM v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1923 , and SZJBD v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2009] FCAFC 106 at [73] ). Plainly, such a jurisdictional error affecting a hearing of a Tribunal does not usually, if ever, have the drastic and irremediable effects which concerned Branson J. The important consideration of fairness, which in my opinion the Full Court's judgment in SCAR points to, is that a significant impairment to communication at a hearing arising from language or mental state should be taken into account by the Tribunal when assessing the person's evidence, and that the Tribunal should not make its decision based upon a false assumption that the impairment did not exist. If the Tribunal does make a decision upon a false assumption as to the opportunity enjoyed by the applicant at the hearing under s.425 , and if this has materially affected the Tribunal's conclusions, the Tribunal has failed to exercise its jurisdiction according to law. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 972" id="cs2">The complaints about interpretation may also be particulars of the breach of natural justice claim by the applicant. Whilst I accept that there are circumstances in which a failure to interpret would mean that the applicant was not provided with a proper hearing pursuant to s.425 of the Migration Act 1958 (the "Act") this is not one of those cases because the applicant has not provided appropriate evidence. And insofar as natural justice is concerned the applicant is subject to the provisions of s.422B of the Act and has not provided the court with any particulars of a breach of the Division. Insofar as the interpretation complaints are concerned I would note that SZGYM v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1923 is authority for the argument that inadequate interpretation can amount to breach of s.425 but that SZJZE v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1653 per Middleton J at [21] makes it clear that the applicant has to establish by probative evidence that: "(a) The standard of interpretation at the Tribunal hearing was so inadequate that the appellants were effectively prevented from giving evidence at the hearing; or (b) Errors made by the interpreter at the Tribunal hearing were material to the conclusions of the Tribunal adverse to the appellants. "
Finally, the full bench in WACO v Minister for Immigration [2003] FCAFC 171 indicated that a perfect translation was not necessary. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 813" id="cs3">This is not a case in which it has been established that the provision of a Farsi interpreter (rather than, for example, an Azari Turkish speaker) meant that the applicant was unable to give evidence and present arguments in the manner considered in SZGYM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1923 (and see also SZLMN  Anor v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2009] FMCA 582). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 582" id="cs4">While this ground is expressed in terms of procedural fairness, in submissions the applicant placed reliance on s.425 of the Migration Act which requires the Tribunal to invite the applicant to appear before it to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review. It was contended that the requisite " meaningful opportunity " to appear to give evidence and present arguments under s.425 (see Allsop J in SZJBA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another [2007] FCA 1592 ; (2007) 164 FCR 14 at [53] and SZGYM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1923 at [27] per Graham J) had not been provided. In light of s.422B of the Act and the manner in which this ground was argued I have considered whether there was a failure to comply with s.425 of the Act. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 432" id="cs5">It is not shown that there was any inability by the applicant and the interpreter to understand each other, or that the interpretation failed in any respect --- much less in a material way that could amount to jurisdictional error. Whilst there is no transcript in evidence, the record of the hearing contained within the Tribunal's reasons, which need not be complete, does in this case give a lengthy and apparently detailed account of evidence without any suggestion that there was an interpretation failure. For the above reasons, the present case is distinguishable from SZGYM v MIAC [2007] FCA 1923 , for example, where Graham J, on the evidence before him, found jurisdictional error insofar as differences in dialect had led to the applicant and the interpreter not understanding each other. Also, it appears from [81] that, at the end of the hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant if he had anything else to say and there is no indication that he sought to then say anything further. One would expect that he would have said something at that point if any dialectical difference had been such that he felt he had not communicated all that he wished.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 341" id="cs6">As discussed above, at no time did the applicant or his adviser ask the Tribunal (or the Department) to provide an Uzbek interpreter (cf SZGYM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1923). On all the Departmental and Tribunal forms before the Court the applicant requested a Russian interpreter. He requested an interpreter in Russian for the Tribunal hearing. His adviser indicated, some way into the hearing, that the applicant's Russian was " not good at all " (and the interpreter agreed) and that he might not understand " well-phrased questions " ... "[b] eing pressed and being confused between a few languages " (transcript p.13). This comment (and the interpreter's later remark about his Russian being " very primitive ") was not made in the context of suggesting that the applicant should have been provided with an interpreter in a different language (whether that be Tajik, Uzbek or even Korean). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 180" id="cs7">If the applicant is making a complaint about the quality of the translation which would constitute a claim that s.425 of the Act has not been complied with, he would have to do more than to make a bold assertion at the hearing. While the Court accepts that inadequate interpretation can amount to a breach of s.425: SZGYM v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2007] FCA 1923 , there is a strong obligation upon the applicant to establish inadequate interpretation: SZJZE v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2007] FCA 1653 where his Honour, Middleton J said at [21]: "With respect to the first ground, in order for the appellants to succeed they need to establish by prohibitive evidence that: (a) the standard of interpretation at the Tribunal hearing was so inadequate that the appellants were effectively prevented from giving evidence at the hearing; or (b) errors made by the interpreter at the Tribunal hearing were material to the conclusions of the Tribunal adverse to the appellants [see authorities there cited].
It should also be remembered that in WACO v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2003] FCAFC 171 the Full Bench said at [66]:

 "However, the requirement is not that there be a perfect translation, it suffices that the translation is sufficiently accurate to permit the idea or concept being translated to be communicated. "
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 109" id="cs8">Finally, the applicant told me that the interpreter could not help her communicate very well with the Judge. Apparently, the interpreter had told her about halfway through the hearing that she was not feeling well. Once again I have no evidence of this, other than the applicant's statement. If she really wished to allege that interpreting difficulties were such as to bring her within the scope of authorities such as SZGYM v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1923 , M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1212 , SZJZE v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1653 , Perera v Minister for Immigration [1999] FCA 507 , she would have to produce some evidence. This could have been from the interpreter herself or from the hearing tape. Once again nothing was produced to me. This Court is only able to deal with matters as they come before it on the day of the hearing. The applicant did not ask for an adjournment to obtain the tape but had she done so, I would have been reluctant to grant it. The applicant has had considerable notice of this hearing. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1434" id="cs9">The providing of sufficiently competent interpreting services to applicants before the Refugee Review Tribunal is a daily experience for that body, and the Court should be slow to dictate the procedures which it must follow, and the expense which it must incur when doing so. However, a body of judicial authority establishes that there is a duty on the Tribunal to provide a "competent interpreter" , who in fact provides "a reasonably accurate interpretation" of what the applicant wishes to convey to the Tribunal and of what the Tribunal wishes to convey to the applicant, when he or she attends a hearing (cf. SZGYM v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1923 at [23] and [27], also Perera v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507 ; (1999) 92 FCR 6 and other cases discussed in M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212 and VWFY v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1723). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1270" id="cs10"/>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 744" id="cs11">The sixth claim made by the applicant related to the interpretation. This matter was raised by the applicant today at the hearing. The applicant claimed that the interpretation was inadequate and did not express the real substance of his evidence. An inadequate interpretation can amount to a breach of s.425 of the Act; SZGYM v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1923 ; SZIWK v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 168 , but in order to obtain relief on this ground the applicant must prove that the interpretation is inadequate. As Middleton J said in SZJZE v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1653 at [21] : "With respect to the first ground, in order for the appellants to succeed they need to establish by probative evidence that: (a) The standard of interpretation at the Tribunal hearing was so inadequate that the appellants were effectively prevented from giving evidence at the hearing; or, (b) Errors made by the interpreter at the Tribunal hearing were material to the conclusions of the Tribunal adverse to the appellants. See generally Appellant P119/2002 v Minister for Immigration [2003] FCAFC 230 at [17] " (and numerous other authorities cited)
The applicant has not complied with the strictures identified by Middleton J and has merely asserted a failure of the interpretation at the Tribunal hearing. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 789" id="cs12">32 Other decisions have also recognised that a meaningful opportunity to give evidence and present arguments, in the case of a person who is not fluent in the English language, will only be afforded if an interpreter is present and it is evident that, subject to reasonably accurate interpretation, that which an applicant wishes to convey to the Tribunal and that which the Tribunal wishes to convey to an applicant is fairly interpreted: SZGYM v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1923 at [27] . An inadequate translation service may deprive a party of an effective opportunity to present his case where the standard of interpretation at the Tribunal hearing is so inadequate that the appellant is effectively prevented from giving evidence at the Tribunal: W284 v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1788 ; Tobasi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 1050 , 122 FCR 322 ; Appellant P119/2002 v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 230. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 462" id="cs13">In a further case the High Court in SZFDE v MIAC [2007] HCA 35 ; (2007) 237 ALR 64 reiterated that the requirement in s425 of the Migration Act that the Tribunal must provide procedural fairness to an applicant. In SZFDE it was the agent's fraud that corrupted the Tribunal's decision-making process making the Tribunal's decision in law no decision at all. In the unreported Federal Court case of SZGYM v MIAC [2007] FCA 1923 Graham J allowed an appeal on the basis that there was a failure to provide an interpreter speaking the appellant's own dialect. His Honour found there was denial of procedural fairness. Had the applicant or his advisor been provided with a complete audible tape recording of the hearing then a submission would have been made to clarify the applicant's claim and any conflicting country information. No fraud is alleged in the present case. SZFDE is not relevant. Finally, in SZGYM v MIAC (2007) FCA 1923 , Graham J held there was jurisdictional error because of the failure of the Tribunal to provide an interpreter who spoke the applicant's own language dialect at the oral hearing. The applicant does not allege there was any problem with the interpreter he was provided with at the hearing. SZGYM is not relevant.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l1">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 75 Original jurisdiction of High Court</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">members of the yorta yorta aboriginal community v victoria  aboriginals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">native title to land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">determination of native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">native title rights and interests in s 223(1) native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">possessed under traditional laws acknowledged and traditional customs observed in s 223(1)(a).  aboriginals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">native title to land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">determination of native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">consequences of sovereignty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">whether traditional laws and customs observed must originate in pre-sovereignty laws and customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">effect of development of, or changes in, traditional laws and customs since sovereignty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">whether proof of continuous acknowledgment and observance of traditional laws and customs required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">effect of interruption to continuous acknowledgment and observance of traditional laws and customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">whether substantially uninterrupted acknowledgment and observance is sufficient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">whether traditional law and customs need only be presently acknowledged and observed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">whether continuous existence of claimant society required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">effect of cessation of claimant society on acknowledgment and observance of traditional laws and customs.  aboriginals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">native title to land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">native title rights and interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">section 223(1)(c) native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">meaning of rights and interests recognised by the common law of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">whether there are common law requirements of native title.  aboriginals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">native title to land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">extinguishment of native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.23">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">whether s 223 native title act 1993 (cth) incorporates notions of extinguishment of native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.24">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">whether concepts of "abandonment" or "expiration" of native title can be applied.  aboriginals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.25">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">native title to land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.26">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.27">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.28">cited from="[2002] HCA 58">oral and written testimony.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">appointment of judicial officers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">abolition of one set of inferior courts and substitution of another</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">policy to appoint stipendiary magistrates of former courts as magistrates of new courts unless unfit for judicial office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">decision not to appoint former stipendiary magistrate set aside for failure to accord natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">reconsideration of case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">change of appointment policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">applicants to be judged on merit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">whether former stipendiary magistrate entitled to reconsideration of application on basis of former or current policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">local courts act 1982 (n.s.w.), s. 12.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">aborigines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">claimant application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">registration of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">criteria for registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">sufficiency of asserted factual basis for native title rights and interests claimed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">relationship to statutory requirements for contents of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">review of registrar's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">nature of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">appeal against review decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">whether unduly onerous standard applied by reference to sufficiency of evidence in support of application  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 574">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 574">registration of native title claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 574">application for review of native title registrar's decision refusing registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 574">whether registrar erred in making decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 574">proper construction of registrar's function under s 190c(4)(b) of the native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 529">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 529">application for review of decision of native title tribunal registrar not to accept native title claim for registration on the register of native title claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 529">operation of the native title amendment act 1998 and the registration test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 529">whether the registrar was empowered to not accept the claim for registration where claim already registered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 529">whether registrar was empowered to remove the claim from the register</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 529">whether the registrar's decision represented a sufficient basis to remove the claim from the registrar</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 529">where the registrar was obliged under the legislation to test the claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 529">where the registrar was empowered to remove the claim by necessary implication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 529">where registrar under a duty to maintain the register and remove the claim administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 529">application for judicial review pursuant to the adjr act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 529">review of decision of the native title tribunal registrar not to grant extension of time to amend native title claim and to provide new materials to support claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 529">whether the registrar's decision amounted to a denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 529">whether the applicants had been given a "reasonable opportunity" to provide materials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 529">where timeframe allowed by delegate did not unreasonable fetter or compromise the right of the applicants to a fair hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">citing from="[2008] FCA 529">where applicants allowed a reasonable opportunity to make changes and submit materials and information</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1518" id="cs0">32 A noteworthy and commendable feature of the submission made by the Applicant's solicitor and of the supporting affidavit evidence was their candour. It was stated in the Applicant's written submission:
 The Applicant has not yet sought to again amend the Application since the date of the registration test decision. However such a course of action has not been dismissed by the Applicant. The Applicant cannot properly consider its position in this regard until such time as there is further anthropological research undertaken in respect of the claim. The Applicant apprehended that there were two primary reasons why the claim had failed the registration test. As put in the written submission, these were submitted to be:

 (a) The initial decision of Justice Dowsett in The Gudjala People # 2 v Native Title Registrar [2007] FCA 1167 was the applicable law at the time of the registration test.. The requirements for registration testing as enunciated in that decision (particularly those as apply to s 190B(5)(a) and (b)) have been softened somewhat by the recent full court decision in that matter. (b) There was a lack of material placed before the registration test delegate such that would allow her to satisfy herself as to the requirements of a factual basis to the claim as required by s 190B(5)(c).

[sic] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 157" id="cs1">

81 The appellants seek the following orders:

 1. The decision of the Federal Court in Gudjala People #2 v Native Title Registrar [2007] FCA 1167 given on 7 August 2007 at Brisbane in the State of Queensland be set aside;

 2. The First Respondent accept the native title claimant application QUD 147/06 for registration on the Register of Native Title Claims;

 3. The First Respondent include details of the claim in the Register of Native Title Claims effective from 1 November 2006.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 574" id="cs2">18 The decision of the Registrar to accept or reject an application is a purely administrative function, the decision depending upon whether or not such application satisfies the prescribed criteria ( Gudjala People #2 v Native Title Registrar [2007] FCA 1167 at [15] ). Similarly, the decision by the Registrar or his delegate that he is, or is not, satisfied of the requirement under s 190C (4)(b) is an administrative decision under the Act. As French J said in Strickland v Native Title Registrar [1999] FCA 1530 ; (1999) 168 ALR 242 at 261 in relation to the concept of "satisfaction" of the Registrar under s 190B ,
 There is scope for evaluative judgment in an expeditious administrative process carried out by people with relevant specialist experience. It is not for the Court, in reviewing the Registrar's decision, to substitute its own view of the sufficiency of the native title rights and interests for those of the Registrar unless it can be shown that the Registrar's state of satisfaction is based upon some error of principle. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 529" id="cs3">33 In Gudjala People #2 v Native Title Registrar [2007] FCA 1167 ( Gudjala People ), in the context of an examination of the Registrar's duty under the Act, Dowsett J commented (at [14]):
 Sub-section 190A(1) required the Delegate to consider the Application. In effect he had to decide whether to accept it for registration pursuant to s 190. Sub-section 190A(5A) provides:

 Before the [NT] Registrar has decided whether or not to accept the claim for registration, he or she may notify the applicant that the application may be amended under the Federal Court Rules . </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l1">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 23F Previous non-exclusive possession act</title>
<title id="l2">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 61 Native title and compensation applications</title>
<title id="l3">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 61A Restrictions on making of certain applications</title>
<title id="l4">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 62 Information etc. in relation to certain applications</title>
<title id="l5">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 63 Reference of applications to Native Title Registrar</title>
<title id="l6">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 82 Federal Court's way of operating</title>
<title id="l7">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 190 Keeping the Register</title>
<title id="l8">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 190A Registrar to consider claims</title>
<title id="l9">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 190B Registration: conditions about merits of the claim</title>
<title id="l10">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 190C Registration: conditions about procedural and other matters</title>
<title id="l11">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 190D If the claim cannot be registered--notice of decision</title>
<title id="l12">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 223 Native title</title>
<title id="l13">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 238 Non-extinguishment principle</title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">application for business skills migrant visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">failure to satisfy regulation 131.214</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">opportunity to respond to critical issue on which decision likely to turn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">right to comment upon adverse material from third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">whether critical issue obvious to applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">whether issue apparent from nature or terms of statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">whether applicant knew regulation 131.214 in issue migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">whether common law procedural fairness excluded by s 51a of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">proper construction of ss 51a , 357a and 422b  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">finding by delegate that criterion in regulation 131.214 was not satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">whether evidence required in order to make finding that not satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">effect of s 65 of migration act 1958 (cth). migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">ss 51a , 57 , 65 , 357a , 422b  migration regulations 1994 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">reg 131</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FMCA 836">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FMCA 836">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FMCA 836">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FMCA 836">no jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">proper construction of s 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">where tribunal relied on country information to reject aspects of appellant's story</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">whether reliance transformed country information into information specifically about the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">whether appellant entitled to be told how and why tribunal considered the country information undermined the appellant's credibility.  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">ambit of s 422b of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">proper construction of 'in relation to the matters it deals with'.  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">requirement on tribunal to apply the law to facts rationally found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">whether irrational for tribunal to make adverse credibility findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">where appellant failed to mention serious attacks in statement supporting his application for a protection visa.  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">requirement on tribunal to consider whether it was satisfied that the appellant faced a real chance of persecution for convention reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">whether tribunal only gave consideration to whether the appellant was a credible witness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">precedents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">decisions of full court of federal court on questions of statutory construction to be followed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">requirement that earlier decisions be "plainly wrong" migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">whether s 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth) required tribunal to disclose country information consulted after hearing migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">whether failure to disclose country information consulted after hearing constituted denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">whether failure to call oral evidence from newspaper editor concerning authenticity of newspaper articles constituted denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 92">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 92">appeal from a decision of a judge of the federal court dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 92">whether s 424a(3)(a) of the migration act 1958 (cth) required the tribunal to draw the applicant's attention to country information that was not specifically relevant to him</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 92">appeal dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 212">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 212">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 212">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 212">whether death threats constituted serious harm for the purposes of s 91r of the migration act 1958 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 330">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 330">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 330">refusal to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 330">appellant an iranian and a sabean mandaen</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 330">whether s 91r of the migration act 1958 (cth) wrongly applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 330">whether failure to find specific treatment of appellant and her family</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 330">whether error in reliance on irrelevant material or failure to consider relevant material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 330">whether breach of procedural fairness by failure to provide appellant with certain information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">appeal from judgment of the federal magistrates court -change of circumstance (residence) (class ag) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">definition of "special need relative"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">whether jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">no error shown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">no question of principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 264">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 264">application for a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 264">whether country information was part of the reason for the decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 264">whether country information is non-disclosable information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 264">whether failure to disclose country information resulted in a denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 82">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 82">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 82">tribunal did not invite applicant to comment on certain general country information relied upon by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 82">whether such information required to be provided by s 424a of the migration act  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 82">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 82">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 82">tribunal failed to disclose to applicant all general country information relied upon by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 82">applicant does not establish how the information would have been dealt with</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 82">whether failure to disclose disputed information constituted breach of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 82">whether any breach of natural justice constituted reviewable error in the circumstances of the case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 844">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 844">protection visa.practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 844">review of registrar's decision to refuse to accept application for filing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 844">previous proceeding seeking judicial review of same decision dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 844">rule 2.06</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 844">abuse of process, frivolous or vexatious</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 844">application for review dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1158" id="cs0">8 On 15 March 2006, the applicant filed a notice of appeal in this Court, against the decision of the Federal Magistrate. Middleton J dismissed the appeal: see [2006] FCA 1271. His Honour observed at [18] that:

 "The Tribunal simply did not accept the appellant's claims concerning the incidents following the elections in April 2004. It was not satisfied that he was ever harmed as he alleged. The appellant also submitted the Tribunal failed to consider whether the facts as it found them to have occurred led to the conclusion that the appellants had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Refugees Convention reason. However, it is clear to me that the Tribunal did consider the findings of fact and addressed the proper question whether the appellants had a well-founded fear of persecution. The appellant also submitted that the Tribunal misunderstood what follows from its finding that the persecution did not have an 'official' quality. But, as was noted by the Federal Magistrate, this submission did not appear to relate to any findings of the Tribunal in the present case. "

The High Court subsequently refused to grant the applicant special leave to appeal from his Honour's decision.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 844" id="cs1">In its decision dated 10 August 2006, the Federal Court dismissed the appeal, and it is noted that in its decision, MZXCV  Ors v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs  Anor [2006] FCA 1271 , the Court relevantly considered arguments advanced by the Applicants, and indeed further considered other issues not raised before the Federal Magistrate.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91R Persecution</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 422B Exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 39">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 39">application for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 39">principles to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 39">leave granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 39">appeal allowed practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 39">preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 39">reasonable cause to believe</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 39">trade practices claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 39">no evidence of loss or damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">pharmaceutical compound</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">no claim for particular stereochemistry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">whether racemate only claimed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">whether claims covered [beta] anomer. patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">pharmaceutical compound</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">utility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">whether invention useful according to promises in patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">whether toxicity compromises utility. patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">process for manufacture of chemical compound. patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">process for manufacture of chemical compound</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">whether invention lacked inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">common general knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">whether lack of inventive step established an interlocutory application. interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">alleged infringement of patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">whether prima facie case made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">whether defences of invalidity made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">necessary strength of defences on interlocutory application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">whether damages an adequate remedy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.23">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.24">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">alleged infringer entering established market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.25">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">whether possible to restore applicant to present position</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.26">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">relevance of apparent strength of substantive cases.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1485">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1485">application for interlocutory injunction to restrain infringement of a patent where application made for the revocation of the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1485">prima facie case where patent is longstanding and has been exploited and revocation proceedings were not brought in timely fashion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1485">where balance of convenience favours not disturbing the status quo</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1485">injunction granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">application for injunctions for threatened infringement of patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">claim that patent is invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">lack of novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">obviousness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">lack of fair basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">whether serious issue to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">whether applicant for injunctions would suffer irreparable harm for which damages would not be adequate compensation unless an injunction is granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">proposed applications for listing of pharmaceutical products on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">applications for injunctions refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1393">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1393">application for preliminary discovery under o 15a r 3 and o 15a r 6 of federal court rules (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1393">no supporting affidavit filed with application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1393">repeated failure to comply with the orders of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1393">refusal at hearing to take court to supporting evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1393">application by respondent to strike out for want of due prosecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 1393">held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 1393">application and ancillary motions dismissed for want of prosecution and lack of supporting affidavit as required by federal court rules (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2010] AATA 542">freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2010] AATA 542">therapeutic goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2010] AATA 542">applications to register a therapeutic product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2010] AATA 542">power to issue statement of reasons without revealing whether documents are in the agency's possession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2010] AATA 542">exemptions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2010] AATA 542">breach of confidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2010] AATA 542">adverse effect on proper and efficient conduct of the operations of the agency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2010] AATA 542">public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2010] AATA 542">prejudice to proper administration of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">27 april 2010  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">whether application seeking leave under s 47a(3) of limitation act 1935 (wa) to bring a proceeding or alternatively a declaration as to the inapplicability of s 47a enlivened federal court's jurisdiction under judiciary act 1903 (cth) s 39b(1a)(c) though proceeding was not formally instituted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">where application and accompanying affidavit showed that applicants wanted to bring the proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">where proposed statement of claim exhibited to affidavit disclosed a federal matter arising under federal statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">where applicants required to seek leave before bringing proposed proceeding assuming limitation act applied because leave could not be granted retrospectively</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">federal jurisdiction enlivened in the absence of an initiating process where vindication of rights under federal statute depends or may depend on the resolution of a prior preliminary application for leave under the limitation act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">court had jurisdiction over application as incidental to exercise of judicial power over federal matter  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">whether applicants' substantive claims disclosed a federal matter arising under federal statute within judiciary act 1903 (cth) s 39b(1a)(c)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">where substantive claims included claims for violation of rights and privileges conferred on applicants under the civil aviation act 1988 (cth) and/or related regulations and orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">claims "arose under" federal statutory law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">claims were not made for purpose of fabricating jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">non-federal claims formed part of same "matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">claims disclosed a federal matter attracting federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 980">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 980">preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 980">identity discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 980">applicant required to produce documents to the australian competition and consumer commission by a notice under s 155 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 980">commission official disclosed some information obtained from those documents to third persons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 980">whether that disclosure was a breach of s 155aaa(1) of the trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 980">whether any equitable duty of confidence owed by the commission and its staff to a person who produces documents to it under compulsion in response to a s 155 notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 980">whether foreshadowed causes of action and claims for relief have sufficient prospects of success to justify the making of a preliminary discovery order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 980">whether the interests of justice would be served by the making of such an order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 980">application for preliminary discovery order refused</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1393" id="cs0">In the exercise of the Court's discretion to grant an order under O 15A r 3, the Court must consider whether there is the prospect of the applicant succeeding in the proceedings against the person to be sued: see generally Monsanto Company v Syngeta Seeds Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 228. The claim must be more than a claim worth investigating, it must have some prospect of succeeding: see Allphones Retail Pty Ltd (ACN 008 169 090) v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2009] FCA 980 ; (2009) 82 IPR 121 at [51] - [54] . It is essential that on an application for preliminary discovery that an applicant provide evidence in support of his claim for final relief: see Wyeth v Secretary, Department of Health and Ageing [2009] FCA 313 ; (2009) 255 ALR 352 at [24] - [25]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] AATA 542" id="cs1">Dr Lopert gave as an example of how the market entry of a bioequivalent generic product could be delayed, the sponsor of an originator product commencing breach of patent or copyright proceedings. She asserted that this has occurred on the Australian market. She referred to the case of Wyeth v Department of Health and Ageing [2009] FCA 313 ( Wyeth ), where Wyeth had originally sought information about applications to list bioequivalent generic products to venlafaxine in an FoI application. Dr Lopert said Wyeth could have sought injunctions to prevent the registration of generic venlafaxine products on the ARTG and listing on the PBS. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 367" id="cs2">Hooper v Kirella has been regularly followed and applied in preliminary discovery applications in this Court: see, e.g., Allphones Retail Pty Ltd v Australian Competition  Consumer Commission [2009] FCA 980 ; (2009) 259 ALR 354 ; Wyeth v Secretary, Department of Health and Ageing [2009] FCA 313 ; (2009) 255 ALR 352 ; Optiver Australia Pty Ltd v Tibra Trading Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1560 ; (2007) 163 FCR 554 (' Optiver '); Rush v Commissioner of Police [2006] FCA 12 ; (2006) 150 FCR 165 ; and Kennedy v Wallace (2004) 208 ALR 424. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 980" id="cs3">In Wyeth v Secretary, Department of Health and Ageing [2009] FCA 313 ; (2009) 255 ALR 352 at [24] ---[29] (pp 355---356) Jacobson J described the test as being "... along the same lines as that which applies to a claim for interlocutory injunctive relief ". His Honour went on to say that consideration of that test was connected to the identification of the interests of justice.  The Full Court's judgment in Hooper v Kirella Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1584 ; 96 FCR 1 is binding upon me. I think that what is required is more than a claim worth investigating. In my judgment, what is required is a claim that is within the jurisdiction of this Court and which is not so near to being hopeless as would reasonably and properly justify the claim being described as "merely speculative". The foreshadowed claim must have some prospect of succeeding. Success in this context requires a cause of action known to the law and a real (as opposed to fanciful) prospect that some remedy might be granted. If the foreshadowed proceedings would almost certainly be susceptible to an order for dismissal pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), then preliminary discovery would ordinarily not be ordered. This is the flavour of the remarks of Jacobson J in Wyeth [2009] FCA 313 ; 255 ALR 352 at [24] ---[29]. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 </title>
<title id="l1">NATIONAL HEALTH ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l2">NATIONAL HEALTH ACT 1953 - SECT 99ACE Flow-on of 16% price reduction to related brands of combination items</title>
<title id="l3">THERAPEUTIC GOODS ACT 1989 </title>
<title id="l4">THERAPEUTIC GOODS ACT 1989 - SECT 26B Certificates required in relation to patents</title>
<title id="l5">THERAPEUTIC GOODS ACT 1989 - SECT 26C Certificates required in relation to patent infringement proceedings</title>
<title id="l6">THERAPEUTIC GOODS ACT 1989 - SECT 26D Requirements for interlocutory injunction</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 396">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 396">common interest privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 396">correspondence between solicitors for party and solicitors for non-party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 396">non-party commencing separate proceedings against parties being sued by applicant in current proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 396">non-party's action adverse to interests of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 396">common interest privilege claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 396">insufficient common interest to support privilege claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 396">full copies of documents to be produced</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 122 Loss of client legal privilege: consent and related matters</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 678">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 678">restrictive trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 678">accessorial liability for contravention of s 45e(3) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 678">existence of an "arrangement or understanding"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 678">lack of necessary "meeting of the minds" evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 678">admissibility under s 45 of the evidence act 1995 (cth) of document witness taken to in cross-examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 678">admissibility of witness statement where witness not called</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 678">admissibility of answers to s 155 trade practices act 1974 (cth) notices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 88">privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 88">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 88">advice privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 88">litigation privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 88">implied undertaking</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 88">public interest immunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 88">work product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 88">draft witness statements and witness proofs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 88">whether filing and service, without more, of witness statements constitutes waiver of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 88">distinction between privilege and implied undertaking</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 88">whether encouragement of cartel whistleblowers by protecting confidentiality of statements made to investigators presents a real public interest where there is no evidence that confidentiality was sought or that whistleblowers would be deterred from coming forward by lack of confidentiality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 88">whether public regulatory agency's interest in guarding its work product presents a cognisable public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 88">whether work product doctrine has a separate existence from legal professional privilege in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1314">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1314">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1314">witness statements of applicant to prior proceedings filed and served but not read in those proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1314">subsequent proceeding brought against different respondent by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1314">whether legal professional privilege waived by filing and serving of witness statements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1314">whether waiver limited to use in prior proceedings.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1314">whether witness statements required to be disclosed by rules or order of court and subject to implied undertaking not to be used otherwise than for purposes of prior proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1314">whether leave of court required to allow respondent to current proceeding to read witness statements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1314">federal court rules o.33 r.5(1).   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1314">applicant filed and served witness statements in prior proceedings in federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 1314">respondents retained counsel and experts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1994] FCA 1314">in applicant's subsequent proceeding against different respondent, respondent retained same counsel and experts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1994] FCA 1314">whether counsel and experts should be restrained from being retained in current proceeding.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 422">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 422">principles of construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 422">the meaning of confidential information as defined by the contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 422">whether telecommunications traffic information is confidential information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 422">whether telecommunications traffic information is subject to confidentiality requirements under the contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 422">whether use of such information in the preparation of market share reports and the subsequent use of such reports were permitted under the contract.    held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 422">the uses to which the telecommunications traffic information and the market share reports were put constitutes a breach of contract.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">litigation privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">finalised proofs of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">whether litigation privilege exists where documents created for purpose of providing to opposing party and in fact so provided  privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">litigation privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">waiver of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">whether filing and service, without more, of finalised proofs of evidence constitutes waiver of privilege privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">litigation privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">distinction between privilege and implied undertaking practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">whether leave to appeal against interlocutory ruling ought to be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">case raises a matter of public importance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">possible loss of substantive right</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">leave granted practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">issue not taken below</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">when allowed to be raised on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">when in interests of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">issue concerns substantive right</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">party repudiating stance adopted at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">no prejudice to opposing party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">in interests of justice to allow</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 422" id="cs0">Telstra opposed the tender of those paragraphs of the Lee Outline and the attachments, the subject of the grant of leave to use referred to in [41] above, on the ground that they were privileged, but fairly conceded that the weight of authority, in particular authority binding on me, was against its submission. The prevailing authority in this Court is in favour of the filing and service of an outline of evidence being a full waiver of privilege, such that the outline is then protected only by the implied undertaking to the Court not to use the document other than for the purpose of the proceeding without the leave of the Court: Liberty Funding Pty Ltd v Phoenix Capital Limited [2005] FCAFC 3 ; (2005) 218 ALR 283 at [20] --- [23]; Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Amcor Ltd [2008] FCA 88 ; (2008) 246 ALR 137 at [15] --- [19] per Gordon J; ACCC v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2008] FCA 678 at [122] --- [130] per Finn J; Australian Medi-Care Co Ltd v Hamilton Pharmaceutical Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2008] FCA 976 at [15] per Lander J. Once leave is granted to use the document, the party seeking to do so is released from the implied undertaking and may use it accordingly. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 32" id="cs1">96 In addition, Lander J in Australian Medic-Care Co Ltd v Hamilton Pharmaceutical Pty Limited (No 3) [2008] FCA 976 followed Gordon and Finn JJ preferring the line of authority to the effect that filing and serving of a witness statement, without more, amounted to a full or limited waiver. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 264">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 264">application for a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 264">whether country information was part of the reason for the decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 264">whether country information is non-disclosable information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 264">whether failure to disclose country information resulted in a denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">reliance on 'country information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether tribunal can use such information in assessing credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether such information the sole basis for tribunal's findings as to credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">tribunal's duty to look at reasonably foreseeable future</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether subsequent developments can be relied on to vitiate tribunal's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether sufficient opportunity to deal with country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether tribunal biased</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">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="cp3.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 244">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 244">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 244">tribunal's powers on review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 244">where tribunal may exercise all powers conferred on decision maker for the purposes of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 244">where distinction between commissioner's administrative and assessment functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 244">whether distinction relevant to requisite association between power to be exercised by tribunal and decision under review  taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 244">superannuation contributions tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 244">surchargeable contributions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 244">actuarial value of benefits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 244">commissioner's power to approve another method of calculation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 244">whether an exercise of commissioner's administrative or assessment functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 244">whether exercisable by administrative appeals tribunal on review of objection decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 338">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 338">social security act 1991</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 338">decision to recover overpaid social security benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 338">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 338">whether decision maker failed to consider waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 338">whether tribunal had power to waive repayment of overpaid benefit  social security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1992] FCA 338">social security act 1991</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1992] FCA 338">recovery of overpayment of benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1992] FCA 338">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1992] FCA 338">whether open to tribunal exercising power of waiver to find "special circumstances"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[1992] FCA 338">whether tribunal had power to order part of debt to be written off for a specified period  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[1992] FCA 338">whether administrative appeals tribunal failed to give adequate reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2008] AATA 1116">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2008] AATA 1116">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2008] AATA 1116">deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2008] AATA 1116">"tax effective" scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2008] AATA 1116">part iva</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2008] AATA 1116">amended assessment made more than four years, but less than six years, after the original assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">citing from="[2008] AATA 1116">commissioner disallows deductions under s 51(1) but in the alternative makes a determination under part iva</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">citing from="[2008] AATA 1116">whether deductions "allowable"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">citing from="[2008] AATA 1116">taxpayer seeks to abandon claim that expenditure is deductible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">citing from="[2008] AATA 1116">burden of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">citing from="[2008] AATA 1116">whether taxpayer can succeed in his claim "by default"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">citing from="[2008] AATA 1116">amendment of grounds of objection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">citing from="[2008] AATA 1116">use to be made of lead cases previously determined by the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">citing from="[2008] AATA 1116">objection allowed in part</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">citing from="[2008] AATA 1116">objection decision varied    income tax assessment act 1936</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">citing from="[2008] AATA 1116">s 51(1), 170 , 177g (1), part iva   taxation administration act 1953</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">citing from="[2008] AATA 1116">s 14zzk , 14zy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2006] FCAFC 170">taxation law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2006] FCAFC 170">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2006] FCAFC 170">remission of additional or penalty tax by administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2006] FCAFC 170">tribunal did not have power to remit additional tax in exercising its jurisdiction under s 14zz of the taxation administration act 1953 (cth) having affirmed liability for primary tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2006] FCAFC 170">appeal allowed statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2006] FCAFC 170">specific prohibition in one statute not overridden by general power in complementary statute</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] ACAT 21" id="cs0">In Nippress v Military Rehabiliation and Compensation Commission [2006] FCA 9 43 Cowdroy J was critical of Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision to limit consideration of the issues before by reference to concession extracted from an unrepresented litigant who did not understand the legal significance of those concessions. Cowdroy J said the Tribunal should have taken up any issues which arose in the course of the proceedings which appeared relevant to a determination of the substantive merits of the case.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] AATA 1116" id="cs1">Here, "that which the decision maker (that is, the Commissioner) was entrusted to do" was to decide whether to allow Mr Green's objection, either wholly or in part, or to disallow it: s 14ZY(1) of the Administration Act. He decided to disallow it. The Tribunal's jurisdiction, enlivened by Mr Green's application, exists "to do again" what was entrusted to the Commissioner --- in other words, to decide to allow the objection, either wholly or in part, or to disallow it. Hill J's qualification, inherent in the words "within the limits of the review", means nothing more than that the Tribunal's exercise of the powers and discretions of the Commissioner must be undertaken "for the purpose of reviewing [the decision under review]", in accordance with s 43 of the Administrative Appeals Act 1975 (see Commissioner of Taxation v Hornibrook (2006) 156 FCR 313 ; [2006] FCAFC 170 , especially Gyles J's reference at FCR 320 [18] to the Full Court decision in Commonwealth Bank Officers Superannuation Corporation Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2005] FCAFC 244 , also referred to by Edmonds J at first instance in Commissioner of Taxation v Hornibrook (2006) 61 ATR 573 ; [2006] FCA 9 at 579 [21] ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCAFC 170" id="cs2">

 Associate:
 Dated: 28 November 2006

 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
 NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 210 OF 2006

 ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 BETWEEN: COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
 Appellant AND: REGINALD HORNIBROOK
 Respondent

 JUDGES: GYLES, STONE  YOUNG JJ DATE: 28 NOVEMBER 2006 PLACE: SYDNEY

 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

YOUNG J:

 38 This is an appeal from the judgment of Edmonds J in Commissioner of Taxation v Hornibrook [2006] FCA 9 ; (2006) 61 ATR 573 in which his Honour dismissed an appeal, on a question of law, from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ('the Tribunal'): see Re: Applicant and Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2005] AATA 47 ; (2005) 58 ATR 1256.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l1">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l2">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZQ General interpretation provisions</title>
<title id="l3">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZS Ineligible income tax remission decisions</title>
<title id="l4">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZY Commissioner to decide taxation objections</title>
<title id="l5">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZZ Person may seek review of, or appeal against, Commissioner's decision</title>
<title id="l6">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZZK Grounds of objection and burden of proof</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l8">TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT (NO. 3) ACT 1991 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>