Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">re minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte applicant s20/2002  appellant s106/2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">temporary protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">application for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under s 75(v) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">where refugee review tribunal found that applicant was an unreliable witness and discounted evidence said to be corroborative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was "irrational, illogical and not based upon findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was affected by actual bias or by a reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was vitiated by jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">distinction between discretionary decisions and decisions involving the finding of facts essential to the exercise of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision evidenced an erroneous approach to the finding of jurisdictional facts.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">section 75(v) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">review of administrative decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">extent to which the content of the constitutional writs is affected by common law developments in administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">availability of constitutional writs in proceedings that include an appeal concerning related issues.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was "irrational, illogical and not based upon findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">unavailability of review of factual or evidentiary merits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether relief available under migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ") or under the constitution , s 75(v)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal had no jurisdiction to make the decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether the decision was not authorised by the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether the decision was marred by error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable tribunal would have made it.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 208">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 208">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 208">protection visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 208">whether jurisdictional error.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 208">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 208">extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 208">principles.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 201">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 201">review of a decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 201">whether there was bias or the apprehension of bias on the part of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 201">whether the tribunal denied the applicant a fair hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 201">whether the tribunal failed to consider claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 201">whether the tribunal's decision was illogical or irrational and was affected by wednesbury unreasonableness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 201">whether the tribunal failed to consider that the applicant belonged to a particular social group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2011] FMCA 201">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2011] FMCA 201">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1132">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1132">appeal against sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1132">whether federal magistrate erred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1132">issue of appropriate forum to hear factual dispute in relation to order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1132">whether appellant's solvency relevant to determination of factual dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1132">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 767">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 767">application for a review of a decision of the refugee review tribunal not to grant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 767">application for an extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 767">no reasonable prospect of success in substantive application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 767">application for extension of time dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 767">substantive application dismissed as incompetent.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 966">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 966">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 966">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 966">whether federal magistrate erred in upholding decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 966">whether refugee review tribunal failed to take into account corroborative evidence of second appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 535">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 535">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 535">whether tribunal failed to engage with the applicant's claim and attend to its statutory obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 535">whether tribunal failed to comply with s.425 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 535">whether tribunal wrongfully disregarded conduct in australia in reliance on s.91r(3) of the act.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 434">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 434">application to set aside sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 434">conflict of evidence as to whether applicant executed security documentation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 434">allegation that applicant visited relevant premises with parrot on her shoulder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 434">allegation sustained</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 434">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 50">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 50">review of a decision of the refugee review tribunal (rrt)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 50">federal magistrate quashing a decision of the rrt and requiring the rrt to review the application according to law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 50">whether the rrt had given weight to corroborative evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 50">whether rrt's decision was affected by apprehended bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 50">rrt does not fall into jurisdictional error by first making an assessment of the applicant's credit and then giving attention to the corroborative evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 50">corroborative evidence is assessed and weighed in the balance with all other evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 357">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 357">review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 357">tribunal properly applied s.91r(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 357">findings open to tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 357">tribunal considered all claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 357">no unreasonableness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 357">tribunal complied with s.425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 357">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 357">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 247">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 247">review of refugee review tribunal decision based on refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 247">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 247">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 110">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 110">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 110">turkish national of armenian descent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 110">alleged failure to properly consider the claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 110">whether failure to consider relevant evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 110">whether failure to properly consider probative value of relevant documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 110">whether bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 110">whether failure to inquire</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 110">whether failure to give particulars of information and invitation to comment on particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">citing from="[2010] FMCA 110">whether failure to inform of lack of genuineness of documents a failure to invite to appear and give evidence and present arguments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">citing from="[2010] FMCA 110">whether identification of a wrong issue.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 45">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 45">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 45">protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 45">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 45">citizen of sri lanka claiming fear of persecution on ground of political opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 45">whether tribunal failed to comply with migration act 1958 (cth) s.425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 45">whether applicant was denied a fair opportunity to present his case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 45">whether tribunal made a jurisdictional error by failing to take into account the applicant's impairment arising from his psychiatric and mental condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 45">credibility issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">citing from="[2010] FMCA 45">corroborative evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">citing from="[2010] FMCA 45">whether tribunal failed to take a relevant matter into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">citing from="[2010] FMCA 45">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">citing from="[2010] FMCA 45">proper, genuine and realistic consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">citing from="[2010] FMCA 45">whether a failure to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration is an error of law or jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">citing from="[2010] FMCA 45">certiorari and mandamus to issue.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1269">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1269">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1269">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1269">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1269">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1200">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1200">persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1200">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1200">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1200">refusal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1200">corroborative evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1200">evidence considered as a whole, not sequentially</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1200">"poisoned well" approach not taken by the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1200">on remittal, failure by the tribunal to state or expressly discuss the basis for the remittal does not amount to jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1217">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1217">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1217">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1217">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1169">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1169">review of rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1169">applicant a citizen of india</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1169">whether tribunal failed to provide applicant with particulars of information which would be the reason for affirming the decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1169">whether tribunal decision affected by its incomprehension of the reason for remittal of the earlier tribunal's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1169">whether tribunal rejected corroborative evidence on the basis of credibility findings alone</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1169">reasoning in s20/2002 considered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1143">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1143">review of decision of rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1143">whether tribunal can give no weight to corroborative material where it has not, objectively, concluded that the applicant's evidence was 'poisoned beyond redemption'.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 891">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 891">application to review decision of administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 891">cancellation of business skills visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 891">whether tribunal misconstrued or misinterpreted the word " business " in s.134 of the migration act or failed to consider the applicants' claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 891">whether no evidence for finding or failure to consider evidence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 886">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 886">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 886">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 886">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 886">application dismissed.  minister for aboriginal affairs v peko-wallsend ltd (1986) 162 clr 94</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 770">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 770">review of rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 770">applicant a citizen of iran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 770">whether claim based on kurdish ethnicity clearly arose on materials before tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 770">whether tribunal was entitled to dismiss corroborative evidence on the basis of credibility findings not amounting to a comprehensive rejection of applicant's story</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 770">whether tribunal ought to have informed applicant of its suspicions regarding the authenticity of that documentary evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 770">whether tribunal failed to exercise its duty to enquire.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 554">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 554">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 554">whether the applicant required a litigation guardian</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 554">whether the refugee review tribunal considered all evidence in support of applicant's claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 554">whether refugee review tribunal understood applicant's claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 554">whether refugee review tribunal properly considered the issue of relocation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 427">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 427">review of decision by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 427">whether refugee review tribunal's decision affected by jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 427">whether the refugee review tribunal made findings unsupported by evidence or material before it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 427">whether the refugee review tribunal had regard to corroborating documentary evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 427">whether the refugee review tribunal accorded the applicant procedural fairness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 432">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 432">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 432">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 432">applicant claiming political persecution in india</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 432">applicant not believed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 432">whether the tribunal breached ss.424 or 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth) considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 432">whether the tribunal erred in its consideration of corroborative documents considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 432">no reviewable error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 432">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 412">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 412">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 412">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 412">interlocutory dismissal of show cause application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 412">no arguable case.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 171">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 171">review of migration review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 171">refusal of a child orphan relative visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 171">tribunal erred by failing to give sufficient notice to the review applicant that he could have witnesses at the tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 171">consideration of discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 171">possible prejudice to the applicant flowing from the error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 171">writs ordered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 102">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 102">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 102">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 102">applicant claiming political persecution in nepal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 102">applicant's claims of past harm not believed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 102">corroborative evidence of past harm rejected because the applicant was not believed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 102">applicant's credibility partially intact because significant elements of his evidence was accepted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 102">tribunal erred in failing to take the corroborative evidence into account in considering the applicant's claim of past harm</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 102">jurisdictional error found.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 205">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 205">application for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 205">reasons for decision mere incorporation of submissions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 205">the requirement for reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 205">application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 110">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 110">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 110">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 110">applicant claiming religious persecution in bangladesh</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 110">applicant not believed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 110">whether the tribunal gave meaningful consideration to corroborative evidence of the applicant having reported his fear of harm whilst in south korea but having been advised not to claim protection there, considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 110">no reviewable error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 110">application dismissed.  evidence act 1995 (cth), s.59  federal magistrates court rules 2001 (cth)  minister for aboriginal affairs v peko-wallsend (1985) 162 clr 24</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1644">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1644">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1644">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1644">interlocutory dismissal of show cause application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1644">no arguable case.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1589">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1589">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1589">section 422b of the migration act not applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1589">whether lack of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1589">whether failure by the tribunal to take relevant considerations into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1589">whether tribunal misunderstood applicant's claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1589">whether tribunal acted unreasonably, drew inferences that were not available, misapplied the test for well-founded fear, asked a wrong question or erred in the manner in which it used independent information.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 208" id="cs0"/>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 201" id="cs1">In this regard, as the Minister submits, the Tribunal considered all of the documentary evidence separately, and rejected it on the basis of identified concerns ( SZDGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1638 at [27] per Finkelstein J). No error is revealed in these circumstances. The Tribunal was entitled to consider the applicant's credibility and then separately turn its consideration to the documentary evidence ( Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZNSP [2010] FCAFC 50 ; [2010] FCAFC 50 ; (2010) 184 FCR 485 at [37] per North and Lander JJ). Complaint: Bias
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 6" id="cs2">The appellant's claim for refugee status has a long and unhappy history. With the assistance of a migration agent he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship ("the Department") on 30 November 2007, just over a month after he arrived in Australia. On 28 February 2008 a delegate of the Minister refused his application, notifying the appellant the following day. On 20 March 2008 the appellant applied to the second respondent ("the Tribunal") for a review of that decision and on 24 June 2008, after a hearing on 24 April, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate, although it appears that decision was delivered on 3 July 2008. On 27 January 2009 the Federal Magistrates Court, by consent, ordered that the Tribunal's decision be quashed and remitted the matter to the Tribunal to be determined according to law. On 15 April 2009 a differently constituted tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision after a further hearing but, once again, on 19 October 2009 the Federal Magistrates Court, by consent, ordered that the Tribunal's decision be quashed and remitted the matter again to the Tribunal to be determined according to law. In each case the Minister conceded that the decisions of the respective tribunals had been affected by jurisdictional error, in the first instance when it failed to consider whether China's one child policy, being a law of general application, had a discriminatory impact on the applicant, and in the second, by rejecting corroborative documentary evidence without regard to the principles discussed in SZDGC v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 1638 and SZMSJ v Minister for Immigration [2009] FMCA 102. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1132" id="cs3">This evidence was accepted by the learned Federal Magistrate. Although there was some doubt as to the precise date on which the guarantee had been signed the Federal Magistrate found that Ms Mani had gone to the Economix offices and had signed the document. The Federal Magistrate also took into account evidence that Ms Mani had delivered sandwiches to her husband and son at a construction site and had been identified in a bank document which she had signed as the "office manager" in her husband's business as confirming that she was far more familiar with her husband's business activities than she was prepared to admit. The Federal Magistrate considered that the case before him fell into the rare category, described by Finkelstein J in SZDGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1638 at [23] "where a witness' credit has been so badly destroyed in cross-examination that it is possible to make findings of fact based on that evidence alone and simply disregard any corroborative evidence. " His Honour said (at [27]) that:

 "... I am afraid I just do not believe the applicant. It is not just the fact that she visited Economix with a parrot on her shoulder, which after all the witnesses were most unlikely to forget, but the Westpac documentation and the evidence of Mr Dimech about sandwiches all point to the same conclusion. Because of the way the applicant has herself run her case, denying both guarantees, and I find she signed one of them for a certainty, it seems to me that the finding I make regarding the Economix guarantee properly founds a conclusion that she signed the Transcrete one as well. "

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 767" id="cs4">Applicant S20/2002 77 ALJR 1165; [2003] HCA 30 ; 198 ALR 59 does not sanction a practice of disregarding corroborative evidence. It still requires that the corroborative evidence be assessed and weighed in the balance with all the other evidence. Consequently, the observation concerning the dicta of McHugh and Gummow JJ at [49] in Applicant S20/2002 77 ALJR 1165; [2003] HCA 30 ; 198 ALR 59 made in SZDGC [2008] FCA 1638 ; 105 ALD 25 at [23] is probably misdirected. Those observations addressed the situation where the corroborative evidence was disregarded. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 966" id="cs5">Since the lodgement of the appeal in this matter, the Full Court has given two judgments, one of which came to occupy centre stage in the appellant's case. That was Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZNSP [2010] FCAFC 50 , in which judgment North and Lander JJ, with the assent of Katzmann J, said at [38]:

 The RRT would fall into jurisdictional error if, after making an adverse credibility finding, it simply refused to consider the corroborative evidence. Applicant S20/2002 198 ALR 59 does not sanction a practice of disregarding corroborative evidence. It still requires that the corroborative evidence be assessed and weighed in the balance with all the other evidence. Consequently, the observation concerning the dicta of McHugh and Gummow JJ at [49] in Applicant S20 / [2003] HCA 30 ; 2002 198 ALR 59 made in SZDGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1638 ; [2008] FCA 1638 ; (2008) 105 ALD 25 at [23] is probably misdirected. Those observations addressed the situation where the corroborative evidence was disregarded.

I do not need to explore further the latter aspect of this paragraph in their Honours' reasons, since it was the first aspect upon which the appellant relied. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 535" id="cs6">Counsel for the applicant submitted that in most cases the assessment of the veracity of corroborating documents had to be made independently of the assessment of the applicant's credibility (see SZDGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another (2008) 105 ALD 25 ; [2008] FCA 1638 at [23] and SZNSP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another (2009) 112 ALD 598 ; [2009] FMCA 1143) and that it was only in an exceptional case that the Tribunal could disregard corroborating documents solely on the basis that the applicant's credibility had been completely destroyed. It was contended that this was not such a case, having regard to the fact that the Tribunal had accepted the applicant's evidence that she had suffered physically and emotionally at the hands of the Chinese authorities because of their enforcement of the one child policy. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 434" id="cs7">Transcrete Aust Pty Ltd v Mani  Anor [2010] FMCA 434 (17 June 2010)

 [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ WorldLII ] [ Search ] [ Feedback ] Federal Magistrates Court of Australia You are here: AustLII  Databases  Federal Magistrates Court of Australia  2010  [2010] FMCA 434

 [ Database Search ] [ Name Search ] [ Recent Decisions ] [ Noteup ] [ Download ] [ LawCite ] [ Help ] Transcrete Aust Pty Ltd v Mani  Anor [2010] FMCA 434 (17 June 2010)
Last Updated: 13 July 2010

 FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
 TRANSCRETE AUST PTY LTD v MANI  ANOR [2010] FMCA 434
 BANKRUPTCY --- Application to set aside sequestration order --- conflict of evidence as to whether applicant executed security documentation --- allegation that applicant visited relevant premises with parrot on her shoulder --- allegation sustained --- application dismissed. Evidence Act 1995 , s.140
 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant
 S 20/2002 [2003] HCA 30 ; (2003) 198 ALR 59
 SZGDC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1638
 Applicant: TRANSCRETE AUST PTY LTD
(A.C.N. 007 448 035)
 First Respondent: CEMAL MANI
 Second Respondent: REYHAN MANI
 File Number: MLG 576 of 2009
 Judgment of: Burchardt FM
 Hearing dates: 21, 28 May  8 June 2010
 Date of Last Submission: 8 June 2010
 Delivered at: Melbourne
 Delivered on: 17 June 2010
 REPRESENTATION
 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr C. King
 Solicitors for the Applicant: Coopers Lawyers
 Counsel for the Second Respondent (the Review Applicant): Mr J. McKay
 Solicitors for the Second Respondent (the Review Applicant): David Tonkin  Associates
 Counsel for the Trustee: Mr R. de Lemos
 Solicitors for the Trustee: Harris Carlson Lawyers
 ORDERS

 (1) The application filed on 6 April 2010 be dismissed. (2) The costs of the Petitioning Creditor and of the Trustee be taxed in accordance with the Federal Court Rules and be paid from the estate of the Second Respondent in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966 .
 FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
 COURT OF AUSTRALIA
 AT MELBOURNE
 MLG 576 of 2009
 TRANSCRETE AUST PTY LTD
Applicant

And

 CEMAL MANI
First Respondent

 REYHAN MANI
Second Respondent

 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
 (Revised from transcript)
 The matter before the Court is an application for review filed on
6 April 2010 by Reyhan Mani, whom I shall describe as the applicant, to annul her bankruptcy and to set aside a sequestration order and another order made by Registrar Luxton on 22 October 2009.  In SZGDC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1638 at [23] , Finkelstein J observed that cases of this sort of poisoned-well scenario would be rare. What his Honour said was: "There may be circumstances where it is not necessary to pay due regard to corroborative evidence. " </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 50" id="cs8">20 The first respondent relied upon a decision of Finkelstein J in SZDGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1638. In that case, Finkelstein J said at [23] after considering the dicta of McHugh and Gummow JJ at [49] in Applicant S20/2002 [2003] HCA 30 ; 198 ALR 59:
 That proposition is no doubt true. But the circumstances for its application will be rare indeed. Even experienced applicants can only point to a handful of cases where a witness' credit has been so badly destroyed in cross-examination that it is possible to make findings of fact based on that evidence alone and simply disregard any corroborative evidence. He referred to WAIJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 80 ALD 568.  17 The Federal Magistrate referred to a decision of Finkelstein J in SZDGC v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 1638 and said:

 12. In the instant case the Tribunal did not find that the applicant had lied. It found it difficult to believe a number of assertions that she had made but it did believe others. 38 The RRT would fall into jurisdictional error if, after making an adverse credibility finding, it simply refused to consider the corroborative evidence. Applicant S20/2002 [2003] HCA 30 ; 198 ALR 59 does not sanction a practice of disregarding corroborative evidence. It still requires that the corroborative evidence be assessed and weighed in the balance with all the other evidence. Consequently, the observation concerning the dicta of McHugh and Gummow JJ at [49] in Applicant S20/2002 [2003] HCA 30 ; 198 ALR 59 made in SZDGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1638 ; (2008) 105 ALD 25 at [23] is probably misdirected. Those observations addressed the situation where the corroborative evidence was disregarded. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 357" id="cs9">As Ms Sirtes submits, the Tribunal disregarded the applicant's attendance at church pursuant to s.91R(3). It did not reject the letter or fail to consider this evidence as in the sense found, for example, in SZDGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1638 at [27]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 247" id="cs10">In the written submissions relied upon by Ms Palmer it is noted that the Tribunal did not simply reject the business card based on its adverse view of the Applicant's credibility. Rather it assessed the document independently and relied on an anomaly contained in the document itself and the Applicant's oral evidence to support its general adverse credibility finding: Re Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Applicant s20/2002 [2003] HCA 30 per McHugh and Gummow JJ at [49] and SZDGC v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1638 at [27] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 110" id="cs11">A further problem with the manner in which the Tribunal has dealt with the Newspaper Article is highlighted by the following passages from SZDGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship : [88] "23 It is only necessary to deal briefly with the second ground. The complaint is that the tribunal failed to "consider the corroborative evidence in the form of the Summons against the husband of the applicant and the Administrative Penalty Order, before making the adverse credibility finding". I take it to be a trite proposition that a decision-maker required to find facts, whether the decision-maker be a judge or an administrative official, must consider the totality of the evidence that bears upon the facts to be found.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 154" id="cs12">The appellant relied on what Finkelstein J had said in SZDGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1638 at [23] , [24] and [27]. He observed that a decision-maker had to consider any direct evidence of the existence of the facts in issue, together with any corroborative evidence that bore on that issue, and that it would only be a rare case indeed where the exception to the general rule referred to in Applicant S20/2002 198 ALR 59, would operate. He also referred to what Lee and Moore JJ had said in WAIJ v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 80 ALD 568 at 574-575 [27]. There, an applicant for review had complained that the tribunal had failed to have regard to certain documents because it was not convinced that the documents could overcome difficulties with the applicant's evidence. They held that for the exception of a "poisoned well" to apply there would need to be cogent material to support a conclusion that the appellant had lied. Their Honours said that it would not be open to exclude such material as worthless or not worthy of consideration as corroboration of an applicant for review's claims merely because the tribunal would consider it unlikely that the events described by the applicant would occur. They continued:

 "In such a circumstance the tribunal would be bound to have regard to corroborative material before attempting to reach a conclusion on the applicant's credibility. Failure to do so would provide a determination not carried out according to law and the decision would be affected by jurisdictional error. "

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 45" id="cs13">SZNCR v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2010] FMCA 45 (27 January 2010)

 [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ WorldLII ] [ Search ] [ Feedback ] Federal Magistrates Court of Australia You are here: AustLII  Databases  Federal Magistrates Court of Australia  2010  [2010] FMCA 45

 [ Database Search ] [ Name Search ] [ Recent Decisions ] [ Noteup ] [ Download ] [ LawCite ] [ Help ] SZNCR v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2010] FMCA 45 (27 January 2010) Federal Magistrates Court of Australia [ Index ] [ Search ] [ Download ] [ Help ] SZNCR v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2010] FMCA 45 (27 January 2010)
Last Updated: 5 February 2010

 FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
 SZNCR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION  ANOR [2010] FMCA 45
 MIGRATION --- Visa --- Protection (Class XA) visa --- review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision --- citizen of Sri Lanka claiming fear of persecution on ground of political opinion --- whether Tribunal failed to comply with Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s.425 --- whether applicant was denied a fair opportunity to present his case --- whether Tribunal made a jurisdictional error by failing to take into account the applicant's impairment arising from his psychiatric and mental condition --- credibility issues --- corroborative evidence --- whether Tribunal failed to take a relevant matter into account --- jurisdictional error --- proper, genuine and realistic consideration --- whether a failure to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration is an error of law or jurisdictional error --- certiorari and mandamus to issue. Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.91X , 422B , 425 , 476
 SZDGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1638
 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; ex parte S20/2002 (2003) 198 ALR 59 ; [2003] HCA 30
 SZMSJ v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2009] FCA 102
 WAIJ v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 74
 NABE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (No. 2) (2004) 144 FCR 1 ; [2004] FCAFC 263
 SZDRV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 926 followed
 SZIAY v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2006] FMCA 1680
 SZIIF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 913
 SZIWY v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2007] FMCA 1641
 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SCAR (2003) 128 FCR 553 ; [2003] FCAFC 126
 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend [1986] HCA 40 ; (1985) 66 ALR 299
 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6 ; (1996) 185 CLR 259
 Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1
 SDAQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 120 ; (2003) 199 ALR 265
 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57
 SZFDE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 232 CLR 189 ; 237 ALR 64 ; 96 ALD 510 ; [2007] HCA 35
 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SGLB (2004) 207 ALR 12
 NAMJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 76 ALD 56 ; [2003] FCA 983
 WAJR v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 204 ALR 624 ; [2004] FCA 106
 SZKGC v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2009] FMCA 1015
 NAIS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 77 ; (2005) 228 CLR 470 ; 223 ALR 171 ; 80 ALJR 367
 SZBEL v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152 ; 231 ALR 592 ; [2006] HCA 63
 Applicant: SZNCR
 First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION  CITIZENSHIP
 Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
 File Number: SYG 5 of 2009
 Judgment of: Scarlett FM
 Hearing dates: 21, 22  28 October 2009
 Date of Last Submission: 28 October 2009
 Delivered at: Sydney
 Delivered on: 27 January 2010
 REPRESENTATION
 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Young
 Solicitors for the Applicant: Bernard McHardy McLaughlin  Riordan
 Counsel for the Respondents: Mr Mitchell
 Solicitors for the Respondents: DLA Phillips Fox
 ORDERS

 (1) An order in the nature of certiorari is to issue to quash the decision of the second respondent made on 3 December 2008 to affirm the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa. (2) An order in the nature of mandamus is to issue remitting the application of the applicant to the second respondent for review of the decision of a delegate of the first respondent not to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa to the second respondent for determination according to law. (3) The application is adjourned to 12 March 2010 at 10:15am for costs hearing.
 FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
 COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
 SYDNEY
 SYG 5 of 2009
 SZNCR
Applicant

And

 MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION  CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
 REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
 Application
 The critical issue in this case is whether the applicant was so affected by a psychiatric disorder that he was unable to give proper evidence to the Refugee Review Tribunal at two hearings.  Mr Young submitted that the Tribunal placed no weight on the document because it repeated the applicant's claim, in other words, that it corroborated the claim. He submitted that a decision maker must consider the totality of the evidence that bears on the facts to be found, which requires the decision maker to consider any direct evidence together with any corroborative evidence ( SZDGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [27] per Finkelstein J at [23]-[27]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1269" id="cs14">On the basis of these inconsistencies in the documents provided by the applicant the Tribunal formed the view that they were not genuine (CB 217 at [85], CB 218 at [89], CB 219 at [91]). However the Tribunal acknowledged that other documents were genuine and relied on the inconsistencies between those documents and the applicant's claims as the basis of rejection (CB 219 at [91]-[93], CB 220 at [96]). I agree with the submission made by Ms Johnson that the Tribunal did not simply reject these particular documents based on its adverse view of the applicant's credibility ( Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Re; Ex parte Applicant S20/2002; Appellant S106/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 30 ; SZDGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1638). Rather the Tribunal member assessed the documents independently and relied upon identified inconsistencies and implausibilities in the documents to support its general adverse credibility finding. Care should be taken when assessing documents in these circumstances. However, care should be exercised as indicated in the decision of SZTGC v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1638 per Finkelstein J at [27] where His Honour said: This is not a rational approach. Putting to one side the fact that the tribunal misunderstood the appellant's claim, it is false reasoning to find that the corroborative evidence was not authentic because the tribunal without regard to that evidence found the appellant to be dishonest. The tribunal should have had regard to the documents when assessing the appellant's credibility. In that process it might have found the documents not to be authentic. But that would need to have been for independent reasons, unless the appellant's evidence fell into the S 20/2002 category. It plainly did not fall into that category. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1200" id="cs15">While the applicant accepted that the Tribunal does not act irrationally it if discounts corroborative evidence on the basis that the applicant's allegations have been rejected as not being credible ( Re Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S20/2002 [2003] HCA 30 ; [2003] HCA 30 ; (2003) 198 ALR 59) , it was submitted that such circumstances will only occur in rare cases and the Tribunal cannot simply discount corroborative evidence because it considers the applicant's claim unlikely. In this regard, the applicant referred to the comments of Finkelstein J in SZDGC v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1638 ; (2008) 105 ALD 25 where his Honour acknowledged that a party's credibility may be so weakened in cross-examination that any corroborative evidence is given no weight. While accepting this proposition to be true, his Honour continued: But the circumstances for its application will be rare indeed. Even experienced advocates can only point to a handful of cases where a witness' credit has been so badly destroyed in cross-examination that it is possible to make findings of fact based on that evidence alone and simply disregard any corroborative evidence. (at 30-31 [23]) </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1217" id="cs16">The applicant stated that original documents would be submitted in the hearing. There are a number of aspects to the claims made in the amended application. First the applicants take issue with the fact that the Tribunal did not believe their claims about what occurred in India, although they " gave all evidence to prove it . " Insofar as the applicants take issue with the Tribunal's fact finding or its findings in relation to their credibility, fact finding and credibility findings are matters for the Tribunal ( Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs v SBAA [2002] FCAFC 195 at [36] , Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 74 ALJR 405, [2000] HCA 1). The Tribunal findings were open to it on the material before it for the reasons that it gave. Insofar as it may be intended to submit that the Tribunal did not consider evidence submitted by the applicants, on the contrary, it is apparent from the Tribunal's reasons for decision that it considered the applicants' claims and also their supporting documentation, but for the reasons it gave did not accept the claims and did not accept that the supporting documentation established or supported the claims. It engaged in the necessary consideration of the claimed corroborative material ( SZDGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another (2008) 105 ALD 25 ; [2008] FCA 1638). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1169" id="cs17">Notwithstanding Kirby J's views, those of McHugh and Gummow JJ have prevailed. But it is, in my view, prudent for Tribunals to bear in mind the views expressed by Finkelstein J in SZDGC v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 1638 which were cited positively in SZGYT v Minister for Immigration [2009] FCA 705 and SZMSB v Minister for Immigration [2009] FCA 373. His Honour said, at [23]: "There may be circumstances where it is not necessary to pay due regard to corroborative evidence. In Re Minister of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S20/2002 [2003] HCA 30 , McHugh and Gummow JJ said "it is not unknown for a party's credibility to have been so weakened in cross-examination that the Tribunal of fact may well treat what is proffered as corroborative evidence as of no weight because the well has been poisoned beyond redemption.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1143" id="cs18">In SZDGC v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 1638 cited positively in SZGYT v Minister for Immigration [2009] FCA 705 and SZMSB v Minister for Immigration [2009] FCA 373 Finkelstein J said of the passage from S20 that I have extracted: [23] ...That proposition is no doubt true. But the circumstances for its application will be rare indeed. Even experienced advocates can only point to a handful of cases where a witness' credit has been so badly destroyed in cross-examination that it is possible to make findings of fact based on that evidence alone and simply disregard any corroborative evidence.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 891" id="cs19">In any event the Tribunal's obligation is to make its determination having regard to " relevant" material in the sense considered in Craig v The State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58 ; (1995) 184 CLR 163 at 179 and Applicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Another [2005] HCA 72 ; (2005) 225 CLR 88 at [16] --- [17]. If a Tribunal granted or failed to consider relevant material in a way that affected the exercise of power it would fall into jurisdictional error ( Craig at 179 and Toro Martinez v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2009] FCA 528 at [43] per Rares J). The jurisdictional error considered above can be characterised as a failure by the Tribunal to have regard to such relevant material, being the material before it evidencing the value of independent orders shipped by G Ping in the period between 2006 and early 2007. As discussed, such evidence " bears upon the facts to be found" (see SZDGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another [2008] FCA 1638 ; (2008) 105 ALD 25 at [23] ) and was " relevant material" in the Craig v South Australia sense (see WAFP , SBAA, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30 ; (2001) 206 CLR 323 at [82] and Martinez at [43]-[51]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 886" id="cs20">A third factor which Mr Young submits is that Tribunal 3 had already accepted that the applicant has been subject to various acts of past persecution. He submits that at [145] of the decision, Tribunal 3 effectively said that even though there was nothing in the applicant's oral evidence which undermined his claims, it gave the documents no weight. Mr Young also referred to SZDGC v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1638 per Finkelstein J and SZMSJ v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2009] FMCA 102 per Driver FM. Respondent's submissions in respect of Ground 1
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 770" id="cs21">Accordingly, the Tribunal did not comprehensively reject the Applicant's credibility; rather, it accepted the Applicant's claims in a number of important respects. Therefore it follows that the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by rejecting the corroborative evidence on the basis of its credibility concerns alone. "

In SZDGC v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 1638 Finkelstein J said at [23] after quoting from Applicant S20/2002 :

 "[23] ... That proposition is no doubt true. But the circumstances for its application will be rare indeed. Even experienced applicants can only point to a handful of cases where a witness' credit has been so badly destroyed in cross-examination that it is possible to make findings of fact based upon that evidence alone and simply disregard any corroborative evidence.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 705" id="cs22">His Honour also found that the Tribunal's rejection of the appellant as a witness of credit provided a basis for the rejection of his claims (at [21]). That was not justification, the appellant submitted, for the Tribunal failing to consider corroborative evidence. Reference was made to what Finkelstein J said in SZDGC v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 1638 ; (2008) 105 ALD 25 at [27] :
 [I]t is false reasoning to find that the corroborative evidence was not authentic because the tribunal without regard to that evidence found the appellant to be dishonest. The tribunal should have had regard to the documents when assessing the appellant's credibility. In that process it might have found the documents not to be authentic. But that would need to have been for independent reasons, unless the appellant's evidence fell into the S20/2002 category. It plainly did not fall into that category.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 554" id="cs23">Counsel for the Applicant referred the Court to various authorities which stand for the proposition that a decision maker cannot be said to have regard to all of the information to hand without at least really and genuinely giving it consideration and engaging in an intellectual process in respect of that evidence ( NAJT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 134 ; (2005) 147 FCR 51 at [212] ; WAFP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 319 ; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SBAA [2002] FCAFC 195 (" SBAA "); SZKHD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 112 ; SZDGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1638). The Court accepts the correctness of the principles as submitted by counsel for the Applicant. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 427" id="cs24">Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Tribunal should have considered whether government officials in China were capable of being bribed. In support of that submission, counsel for the Applicant referred the Court to SZDGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1638 (" SZDGC ") at [42] where Finkelstein J referred to the passage of Allsop J (with whom Spender J agreed), in Htun v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1802 ; (2001) 194 ALR 244 at [42] , as follows: "The requirement to review the decision under s 414 of the Act requires the tribunal to consider the claims of the applicant. To make a decision without having considered all the claims is to fail to complete the exercise of jurisdiction embarked on. The claim or claims and its or their component integers are considerations made mandatorily relevant by the Act for consideration... It is to be distinguished from errant fact finding. The nature and extent of the task of the tribunal revealed by the terms of the Act... make it clear that the tribunal's statutorily required task is to examine and deal with the claims for asylum made by the applicant. " [Emphasis added] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 432" id="cs25">The Federal Court dealt with the issue of the Tribunal's obligation to take into account corroborative evidence in SZDGC v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 1638 at [23] to [27]: It is only necessary to deal briefly with the second ground. The complaint is that the tribunal failed to "consider the corroborative evidence in the form of the Summons against the husband of the applicant and the Administrative Penalty Order, before making the adverse credibility finding". I take it to be a trite proposition that a decision-maker required to find facts, whether the decision-maker be a judge or an administrative official, must consider the totality of the evidence that bears upon the facts to be found.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 412" id="cs26">I have also considered whether it might be argued that the Tribunal erred in its treatment of the baptismal certificate provided by the applicant to support her claims of being a Christian in China [6] . At paragraph 83 of its reasons (CB 119), the Tribunal states that it placed no weight on the baptismal certificate. However, in my view, it is not arguable that the Tribunal fell into the error identified by the Federal Court in SZDGC .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 373" id="cs27">In those supplementary written submissions, in relation to the "no weight" issue, Ms Francois submitted that the relevant authorities held that: It is not irrational, nor is it an error, for a Tribunal to reject, or give no weight to, corroborative evidence without further analysis or reasons, where it has determined an appellant is fabricating a story, provided that there is cogent evidence to support such adverse findings: Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex Parte Applicant S20/2002 [2003] HCA 30 ; (2003) 198 ALR 59 at [12] and [49] ; WAGU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 912 at [34] --- [36] ; WAJQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1580 at [21] and see also SZDGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 105 ALD 25 ; [2008] FCA 1638 at [23] to [24]). The Tribunal does not have to repeat its adverse analysis of evidence given in an earlier part of its decision when it states in its "Findings and Reasons" that it has given no weight to that evidence: SZJJA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 111 at [13] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 171" id="cs28">In relation to the other particulars the applicant submits that the Tribunal failed to give meaningful consideration (or engage in an active intellectual process in considering) the documentary evidence referred to. The applicant relies upon the Federal Court decision in NAJT v Minister for Immigration [2005] FCAFC 134 ; (2005) 147 FCR 51 , in particular at [213] and the decision of his Honour Sackville J in Singh v Minister for Immigration (2001) FCR 152 at [59]. During the course of oral argument, counsel for the applicant also adopted the reasoning of his Honour Finkelstein J in SZDGC v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 1638 at [23] - [27] in order to support the proposition that the Tribunal did not properly take into account corroborative evidence in the form of certain documents in dealing with the applicant's claims. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 102" id="cs29">The issue was recently and cogently dealt with by the Federal Court in SZDGC v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 1638 at [23] - [27] where his Honour Finkelstein J said: It is only necessary to deal briefly with the second ground. The complaint is that the tribunal failed to "consider the corroborative evidence in the form of the Summons against the husband of the applicant and the Administrative Penalty Order, before making the adverse credibility finding". I take it to be a trite proposition that a decision-maker required to find facts, whether the decision-maker be a judge or an administrative official, must consider the totality of the evidence that bears upon the facts to be found.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 205" id="cs30">On balance, however, it is considered that the reasons of the Magistrate: (i) disclose the reasoning process in fact adopted; and (ii) display no appellable error.
Notwithstanding the extent to which the Magistrate has placed reliance upon the material incorporated within his reasons for judgment, the remaining brevity of the language of the Magistrate does indicate that he did give independent consideration to each of the grounds sought to be advanced. The Magistrate correctly concluded that " the applicant failed before the Tribunal because he was not believed ": [2008] FMCA 1644 at [5] . He then went on to address, albeit briefly, the arguments founded upon an alleged breach of s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and an allegation of actual bias. The decision in SZDGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1638 , 105 ALD 25 , it was concluded, was to be distinguished. The very process of distinguishing that decision exposes not only an independent consideration of the facts of SZDGC but an independent consideration of the facts of the case then before him and an analysis of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 110" id="cs31">I prefer the Minister's submissions. I accept that, leaving aside cases where an applicant's credibility has been so comprehensively destroyed that a decision maker need not pay any regard to otherwise corroborative evidence, which is necessarily a restricted class of cases, the Tribunal needs to grapple with corroborative evidence presented before reaching an adverse credibility conclusion [41] . I also accept that in doing so the Tribunal needs to grapple with the relevant issues in an active intellectual process [42] . The Tribunal dealt with Ms Chook's letter at paragraph 81 of its reasons (CB 165): First, the applicant lived in South Korea from July 2004 until December 2007, and did not enquire about or seek refugee protection in that country.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1644" id="cs32">I have considered whether any arguable case of error arises in the light of the Federal Court decision in SZDGC v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 1638 at paragraphs 21, 23 and 24. I consider this case is distinguishable from SZDGC on the basis that it was not simply a prior adverse finding on credibility that led the Tribunal to give the documents no weight. In addition, the Tribunal decision is supported by the alternative conclusion that the somewhat euphemistically named "caretaker government" of Bangladesh would be unlikely to pursue politically motivated false cases that had previously been made. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1589" id="cs33">The Tribunal failed to consider Professor Jayaraman's affidavit which was relevant and independent evidence having the capacity to corroborate the claims made by the applicant in material respects (see W412/01A at [19]). This is not a case in which it was unnecessary to have regard to the corroborative evidence in the sense considered in Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S20/2002 [2003] HCA 30 ; (2003) 77 ALJR 1165 at [49] per McHugh and Gummow JJ (see SZDGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1638). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1375">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1375">application by liquidator for retrospective approval of agreements under s 477(2b) of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1375">considerations relevant to exercise of court's discretion</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 477 Powers of liquidator</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1573">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1573">application for order nisi requiring the respondents to show cause why constitutional writs should not be issued in respect of a decision of the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1731">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1731">applications for discovery by prospective respondents corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1731">requirements for the transfer of shares in proprietary companies under the corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">income tax assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">where applicant company trustee for family trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">where trust realised capital gain from the sale of real property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">where respondent issued assessment and penalty assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">where the applicant challenges the assessment and penalty assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">where applicant claims to have provided package of information to respondent prior to assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">where applicant claims respondent did not take information into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">where applicant lodged notice of objection with respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">where respondent disallowed objection and upheld assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">where applicant claims respondent failed to provide particulars of assessment and penalty assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">where applicant claims failure to consider package of information amounted to bad faith or breach of rules of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">where applicant makes other claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">application by respondent for summary dismissal of proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">whether applicant's claims arguable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">whether respondent under an obligation to accord procedural fairness before making assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">whether breach of rules of procedural fairness a basis for relief under s 39b of judiciary act 1903 (cth) in circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">effect of ss 175 and 177 of income tax assessment act 1936 (cth). held : no obligation on respondent to provide particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">no arguable case of bad faith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">none of the matters identified in r v hickman; ex parte fox and clinton [1945] hca 53 ; (1945) 70 clr 598 established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">no basis to challenge assessment outside hickman provisos</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">applicant's other claims not arguable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">application allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.23">cited from="[2007] FCA 394">proceeding dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1688">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1688">proceedings instituted by applicant under part ivc of the taxation administration act 1953 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1688">applicant filed amended application and amended statement of claim alleging fraud and improper conduct of commissioner and officers in relation to the issuing of assessment notices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1688">same issues raised and determined adversely to applicant in proceedings in state courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1688">application by commissioner for summary dismissal of amended application and amended statement of claim held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1688">amended application and amended statement of claim dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 112">taxes  duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 112">income tax and related legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 112">objections and appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 112">where commissioner assessed primary and additional tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 112">where notice of assessment incorporated notice of both</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 112">where taxpayer pursued objection and appeal including ground that commissioner failed to remit additional tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 112">whether open to taxpayer to request reasons pursuant to s 13 of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1997 (cth) of decision not to remit additional tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 112">whether decision separate from objection decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1646">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1646">request by taxpayers for further particulars and discovery of documents in income tax 'appeal'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1646">motion dismissed income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1646">issues on appeal in relation to transfer pricing provisions of act and adjustment of business profits pursuant to double taxation treaty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">proceedings relating to decisions of minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs refusing grant of student visa and refusing revocation of refusal to grant visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">where minister contended certain information protected under s 503a of migration act 1958 ("the act ")  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">whether anshun estoppel should apply to judicial review of administrative action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">questions concerning the construction of s 503a of the act unreasonably not raised in previous proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">whether special circumstances exist that permit raising questions in these proceedings that should reasonably have been raised in previous proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">no special circumstances found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">whether decision of primary judge final or interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">applicability of high court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">where application in the high court for the issue of the constitutional writs remitted to the federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">application in high court out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">whether lack of time limits for institution of application for issue of constitutional writs in federal court rules obviated the need for an extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">whether time limits for application seeking issue of writs of certiorari and mandamus should give way where relief in the nature of prohibition warranted. judgments and orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1995] FCA 1299">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1995] FCA 1299">the anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1995] FCA 1299">whether applies to failure to raise a cross-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1995] FCA 1299">whether claims now made should reasonably have been raised in earlier proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1995] FCA 1299">whether there were "special circumstances" excluding the application of the anshun principle.   estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1995] FCA 1299">the anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1995] FCA 1299">whether applies to failure to raise a cross-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1995] FCA 1299">whether claims now made should reasonably have been raised in earlier proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1995] FCA 1299">whether there were "special circumstances" excluding the application of the anshun principle.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">industrial law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">conciliation and arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">private clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">whether protection from challenge on constitutional ground</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12),s. 51(xxxv)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">conciliation and arbitration act 1904 (cth),ss. 60, 119.  high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">removal of causes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">appeals from judgments, decrees or orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">determination by federal court on stated case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">no right of appeal to high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">cause removed to high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">power to consider correctness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">the constitution (63  64 vict. c.12) , s. 73</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.15">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth),s. 25(6)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.16">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">judiciary act 1903 (cth),ss. 40, 42.  practice costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.17">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">intervention by attorney-general</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.18">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">discretion to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.19">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">judiciary act 1903(cth),s. 78a(2).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">hire of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">contractual indemnity by hirer against loss caused to owner from use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">action for damages against hirer and owner arising out of use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">notices of contribution between hirer and owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">claim of contribution by owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">apportionment of liability between defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">subsequent action by owner for indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">whether estopped by failure in original action to plead indemnity in defence to the claim for contribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">wrongs act 1958 (vict.) s. 24 (1) (c).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1967] HCA 47">industrial law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1967] HCA 47">conciliation and arbitration commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1967] HCA 47">power to award wage without prescribing basic wage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1967] HCA 47">alteration of basic wage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1967] HCA 47">conciliation and arbitration act 1904-1966 (cth), s. 33.*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">industrial arbitration (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">conciliation and arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">coal mining</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">local reference board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">quorum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">less than required number of members present</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">defence (transitional provisions) act 1946-1947 (no. 77 of 1946</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">no. 78 of 1947)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">national security (coal mining industry employment) regulations (s.r. 1941 no. 25</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">1948 no. 45), regs. 12, 13, 17.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 991">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 991">remission of additional tax payable by way of penalty under a provision of part vii of the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 991">whether an invalid exercise of discretion to remit within the hickman provisos could invalidate a notice of amended assessment of the amended taxable income of a taxpayer and of the tax payable thereon into which notice of assessment of additional tax has been incorporated under s 227(2) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 991">whether the commissioner's discretion to remit additional tax under s 227(3) of the act stands apart from the commissioner's obligation to make an assessment of the additional tax payable under s 227(1) of the act practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 991">summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 991">striking out of pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 991">inadequate particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 483">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 483">application to transfer proceedings to the federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 483">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 991" id="cs0">
 The matter presently before the Court is a Notice of Motion filed by the respondent on 6 June 2008. It is a sequel to two Notices of Motion which were the subject of decision in Bonnell v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 60. The earlier motions were referred to at [46] and [48] of that judgment of 8 February 2008.  Given that the present motion is truly a sequel to the two Notices of Motion which were the subject of decision in Bonnell v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 60 it is inappropriate to recount all of the relevant facts again. The facts and matters and statements of legal principle as recorded in the earlier judgment should be treated as having been restated in full in these reasons. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 483" id="cs1">The Respondent [Bonnell] disputes the judgment debt upon which the applicant [Deputy Commissioner of Taxation]relies in bringing this application as: a) The judgment upon which the Applicant relies is founded upon a purported notice of assessment of income tax ("the assessment"), issued on or about 29 July 2004 which, the Respondent asserts is invalid. b) The Respondent commenced proceedings NSD 1963 of 2006 which are presently before Graham J in the Federal Court, to set aside the Assessment as invalid, and asserts as a consequence that the judgment upon which the Applicant relies is bad and should be set aside.
Justice Graham of the Federal Court handed down the decision in Bonnell v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 60 on
8 February 2008. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 3 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l3">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l4">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 33 Exercise of powers and duties</title>
<title id="l5">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l6">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 17 Election of President</title>
<title id="l7">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 75 Original jurisdiction of High Court</title>
<title id="l8">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 77 Power to define jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 2 Commencement [see Notes 1 and 2]</title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l12">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l13">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 166 Assessment</title>
<title id="l14">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 170 Amendment of assessments</title>
<title id="l15">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 175 Validity of assessment</title>
<title id="l16">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 175A Objections against assessments</title>
<title id="l17">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 177 Evidence</title>
<title id="l18">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l19">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 1 Short title [see Note 1]</title>
<title id="l20">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l21">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l22">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l23">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZL Part applies to taxation objections</title>
<title id="l24">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZZ Person may seek review of, or appeal against, Commissioner's decision</title>
<title id="l25">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZZK Grounds of objection and burden of proof</title>
<title id="l26">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZZN Time limit for appeals</title>
<title id="l27">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZZO Grounds of objection and burden of proof</title>
<title id="l28">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l29">COUNTY COURT ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l30">County Court Act 1958 - SECT 73 Judgments to be final</title>
</legistitles>
</case>