Question:
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 851">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 851">interlocutory decision of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 851">application filed outside 21 day period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 851">application 7 days out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 851">application for extension of time and for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 851">no explanation provided for non-compliance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 851">application for extension of time refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 851">factors relevant to exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 851">to do justice between the parties</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 851" id="cs0">Expressed in perhaps slightly different language, in Sochorova v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 555 , Spender J set forth the terms of O 52 r 5(3) and expressed " the relevant test " as follows:
 THE RELEVANT TEST
 ...

 [38] The discretion to extend time conferred by that rule is given for the sole purpose of enabling justice to be done between the parties.

 [39] In Gallo v Dawson [1990] HCA 30 ; (1990) 93 ALR 479 , McHugh J was concerned with the application of O 60 r 6 of the High Court Rules in respect of the applicant's application for an extension of time. McHugh J said, at 480:

[Order 60 rule 6] provides that a court or a justice may enlarge the time appointed by the Rules for doing an act upon such terms, if any, as the justice of the case may require and that the enlargement may be ordered although the application is not made until after the expiration of the time appointed or fixed for doing the act.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 60 Protection of members, alternative dispute resolution practitioners, Registrars, District Registrars, Deputy Registrars, Conference Registrars, barristers and witnesses</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 11 Visa applicable to 2 or more persons</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 14 Unlawful non-citizens</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 435 Protection of members and persons giving evidence</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 476 Jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 477 Time limits on applications to the Federal Magistrates Court</title>
<title id="l8">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l9">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 7 Australian residence definitions</title>
<title id="l10">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 43 Qualification for age pension</title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 921" id="cs0">3. To the extent to which Anthony John Sobey needs leave to appeal from the orders made today, leave to appeal is given for the operation of order 1 hereof be stayed until 14 December 2006. "

3 The Judge delivered reasons for making those orders and for refusing Mr Sobey's application for an adjournment: Nicol v PGLE Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1669. Mr Sobey asked for, and was granted, leave to appeal from the orders made on 4 December 2006.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT (CORPORATIONS) RULES 2000 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l2">REAL PROPERTY ACT 1886 </title>
<title id="l3">REAL PROPERTY ACT 1886 - SECT 64 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1379">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1379">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1379">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1379">applicant claiming political and religious persecution in india</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1379">applicant not believed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1379">no reviewable error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1379">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">szbyr v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants were refused a visa under s 36(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants gave a statutory declaration to the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a visa partly on the basis of discrepancies between the statutory declaration and the appellants' oral evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief was available to the appellants.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">s 424a of the act , read with s 441a , requires that an applicant be given written notice of particulars of any information that would be a reason or a part of the reason for affirming a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether s 424a applied to the appellants' statutory declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">temporal scope of s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal breached s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether "information" included discrepancies or inadequacies in previously submitted evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "reason, or a part of the reason".  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">certiorari and mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">impact of discretionary considerations governing availability of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief should be denied on discretionary grounds for lack of a convention nexus.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">re the minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte durairajasingham  immigration law and administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee review tribunal decision refusing to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">application in original jurisdiction of high court for prerogative relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations and evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to consider all available inferences from evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether s 430(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth) required the tribunal to refer to evidence contrary to its findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether a breach of s 430(1) amounts to a jurisdictional error grounding prerogative relief.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">role of the high court under the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">extent of high court's jurisdiction to grant certiorari pursuant to s 75(v) of the constitution .</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 36 Protection visas</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 65 Decision to grant or refuse to grant visa</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 474 Decisions under Act are final</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2008] AATA 347">freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">citing from="[2008] AATA 347">applicant seeks documents relevant to visa refusal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">citing from="[2008] AATA 347">s 37(2)(b) exemption</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">citing from="[2008] AATA 347">documents would prejudice effectiveness of procedures revealed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">citing from="[2008] AATA 347">personal privacy exemption</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">citing from="[2008] AATA 347">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">citing from="[2008] AATA 347">independent advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">citing from="[2008] AATA 347">ulterior purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">citing from="[2008] AATA 347">not open for the tribunal to conduct judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">citing from="[2008] AATA 347">no reasonably arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">citing from="[2008] AATA 347">decision under review is affirmed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] AATA 347" id="cs0"/>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 36 Disclosure not required: Attorney-General's public interest certificate</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 36A Answering questions where Attorney-General intervenes on public interest grounds</title>
<title id="l3">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 36D Public interest questions under sections 36, 36A and 36C</title>
<title id="l4">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l7">FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 </title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 501 Refusal or cancellation of visa on character grounds</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 503C Protection of confidential information disclosed to the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court--interim non-disclosure orders</title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">applicant veal of 2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal reviewed an unsolicited letter received by the department of immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs, which made allegations against the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal did not inform the appellant of the existence of the letter or its contents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal affirmed decision under review and said that in reaching its decision it gave no weight to the letter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">whether procedural fairness required the tribunal to inform the appellant of the existence of the letter or its contents.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1660">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1660">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1660">s 424a migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1660">whether information provided in original application for protection visa formed an integral part of the tribunal's reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 218">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 218">cancellation of student visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 218">notice of proposed cancellation under s 119 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 218">whether valid s 119 notice.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 218">powers of tribunal on review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 218">where exercise of power by original decision-maker unauthorised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 218">whether tribunal limited to recognising that the original decision-maker had no power to cancel the visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 218">whether tribunal could rectify a failure to comply with a statutory requirement.  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 218">powers of migration review tribunal on review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 218">where tribunal provided notice under s 359a of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 218">where no response within specified time period to the s 359a notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 218">whether s 359c and s 360 empower tribunal to make a decision on the review without conducting an oral hearing.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">saap  anor v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">decision of refugee review tribunal ("tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal invited the first appellant to appear to give evidence and present arguments under migration act 1958 (cth), s 425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">evidence was later taken from first appellant's daughter in absence of first appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal affirmed decision under review by relying on information obtained from first appellant's daughter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to give the first appellant particulars in writing of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to invite the first appellant in writing to comment on information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached migration act , s 424a.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">construction of migration act , s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the provisions of pt 7 div 4 have sequential or ambulatory operation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevance of refugee convention in case of ambiguity.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether a breach of migration act , s 424a amounts to jurisdictional error that invalidates the decision.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">general law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached rules of procedural fairness.  administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether grant of relief should be withheld on discretionary grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevant factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s 39b.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.23">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">joinder of party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.24">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal was not named as a party for the relief sought under judiciary act , s 39b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.25">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the tribunal was a necessary party to the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.26">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">"officer or officers of the commonwealth"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.27">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act , s 39b.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 58">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 58">migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 58">powers on review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 58">where exercise of power by original decision-maker unauthorised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 58">where tribunal accedes to powers and discretions conferred on minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 58">whether tribunal bound by procedures which bound minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 58">whether tribunal limited to setting aside decision migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 58">student visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 58">condition 8202(c)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 58">satisfactory academic performance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 58">whether minister may act when breach likely or probable or only after completion of course</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 58">whether later events may be taken into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">applicant naff of 2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">non-compliance with statutory duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">tribunal concerned by inconsistencies in applicant's evidence at oral hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">tribunal said it would give the applicant a chance to respond in writing to its concerns</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">whether tribunal's failure to do so involved a failure to complete the review process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">whether failure involved a breach of the duty to conduct a review under s 414(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">whether failure involved a breach of the duty to hear from the applicant under s 425(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">whether reviewable error where absence of evidence from the applicant about effect of failure.  migration act 1958 (cth), ss 56 , 414 (1), 415 (1), 425 (1), 427 (1)(b), 420 , pt 7 divs 2-7a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 248">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 248">student visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 248">invalid cancellation of visa by the department of immigration  multicultural  indigenous affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 248">whether an invalid decision is 'no decision at all'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 248">whether merits review can be undertaken on an invalid decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 248">the role of the migration review tribunal in reviewing decisions administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 248">whether full merits review cures the defects in the original decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">re minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte lam  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">application for certiorari and prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">cancellation of applicant's visa for failure to pass character test under s 501(6) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">decision maker informed applicant that it would seek information from third party but then did not do so</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">whether applicant denied procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">legitimate expectation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">re refugee review tribunal; ex parte aala  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">failure to afford procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">prosecutor denied opportunity to be heard on matters affecting credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prosecutor denied possibility of a successful outcome.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">nature of constitutional writ of prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">availability of writ of prohibition for failure to accord procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prohibition available as of right or by discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether application should be rejected due to delay.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">construction of constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">meaning to be given to words in s 75(v)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">relevance of meaning at time of commencement of constitution .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v thiyagarajah  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">judicial review of administrative decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">rejection of application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">error must affect decision to affirm the refusal of grant of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">refugee review tribunal made no error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">absence of power in rrt to reconsider its own decision by reason of later changed circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">appeal against decision to affirm rrt's decision to refuse protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">power of federal court to review decisions limited by migration act 1958 (cth), s 476</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">power of applicant to seek second application for protection visa limited by ss 48a and 48b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">whether federal court has power under s 481 to refer matter to rrt for further consideration to take account of changed circumstances.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">discretionary power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">right to be heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">requirement of procedural fairness in initial licence grant process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">distinction between initial grant and renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">evaluation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether evaluation based upon materials supplied by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">need to identify critical issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">third party materials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">opportunity to rebutt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">consistent with admissions by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">improper exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.14">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether fettered by rule of policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.15">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether evidence of rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.16">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">refusal of licence to retail "x" videos</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.17">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">revenue raising statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.18">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">fit and proper person requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.19">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">applicant trading in breach of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.20">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether applicant not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">new trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">denial of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">submission that evidence of witness should not be accepted stopped by judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">evidence accepted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">whether new trial should be granted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">warehouse licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">power to revoke licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">inherent or implied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">whether collector had power to revoke warehouse licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">customs act 1901 (cth.), s. 78</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">acts interpretation act 1901 (cth.), s. 33(3).  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">jurisdiction of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">whether jurisdiction to review decision made without power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth.), ss. 3(3) , 25 (1)(a).  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.13">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">whether jurisdiction to review decision made without power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.14">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth.), ss. 3(3) , 25 (1)(a).  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.15">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.16">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">"made in the exercise of powers conferred by that enactment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.17">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">meaning of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.18">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth.), ss. 3(3) , 25 (1)(a). this was an appeal from a decision of the administrative appeals tribunal ("the tribunal") setting aside a decision of the collector of customs, new south wales, to revoke a private warehouse licence issued to the respondent subject to the provisions of the customs act 1901 (cth.), the regulations made thereunder and subject to conditions specified on the back of the written licence. the tribunal held that it possessed jurisdiction and made an order setting aside the purported revocation on the ground that the power of revocation which the collector purported to exercise did not exist.  held: per bowen c.j. and smithers j., deane j. dissenting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.19">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">the appeal should be dismissed because: (1) the phrase "made in the exercise of powers conferred by that enactment" in s. 25(1)(a) of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth.) properly construed means in purported exercise of powers conferred by the enactment.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 715">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 715">mrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 715">child residence visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 715">exclusion of adult child with de facto partner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 715">applicant admitted de facto partner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 715">misunderstood meaning of criteria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 715">not denied meaningful hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 715">no jurisdictional error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 715">discretion to refuse relief if remitter futile</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">citing from="[2010] FMCA 715">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 91">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 91">proper construction of s 48a migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 91">whether s 48a applies to invalid applications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 91">whether valid application was made. migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 91">whether full court authorities in yilmaz v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs [2000] fca 906 ; (2000) 100 fcr 495 and minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v li [2000] fca 1456 ; (2000) 103 fcr 486 are inconsistent. migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 91">proper construction of phrase "in the interests of justice" in s 477(2) of the migration act.  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 91">substantial compliance with form 866.  precedent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 91">proper approach of federal magistrate to authority of single judge exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the federal court. precedent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 91">proper approach of single judge exercising appellate jurisdiction when faced with full court authority in appellate jurisdiction.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1492">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1492">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1492">business skills (residence) (class bh) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1492">migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1492">application for review of mrt decision affirming decision of a delegate of the minister refusing to grant a visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1492">no reviewable error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 473">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 473">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 473">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 473">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 473">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 335">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 335">review of decision by delegate to refuse to consider a protection visa application pursuant to s.48 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 335">whether an earlier application for a protection visa was a valid application.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 178">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 178">review of refugee review tribunal decision [conflict of binding authority]</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 178">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 178">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 178">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 45">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 45">review of decision by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 45">whether refugee review tribunal's decision affected by jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 45">tribunal's finding that it did not have jurisdiction was not jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 45">no jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 45">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1499">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1499">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1499">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1499">applicant claiming persecution in china because of the chinese one child policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1499">interlocutory dismissal of show cause application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1499">no arguable case disclosed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1472">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1472">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1472">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1472">applicant claiming political persecution in india</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1472">first rrt decision quashed by consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1472">second rrt relying upon applicant's evidence given at the first rrt hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1472">second rrt's disclosure obligations under s.424a considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.7">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1472">no reviewable error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.8">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1472">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1348">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1348">review of decision by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1348">whether failure to provide protection visa application to refugee review tribunal when protection visa application lost is breach of s.418(3) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1348">whether refugee review tribunal decision requires a valid protection visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1348">whether applicant aware refugee review tribunal lost protection visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1348">whether refugee review tribunal considered all claims made by applicant.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 1172">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 1172">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 1172">decision by tribunal to publish reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 1172">whether breach of s 431 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">citing from="[2006] FCA 1172">whether breach could vitiate decision of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.5">citing from="[2006] FCA 1172">failure to provide country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.6">citing from="[2006] FCA 1172">whether breach of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.7">citing from="[2006] FCA 1172">failure to provide appellant with departmental file note</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.8">citing from="[2006] FCA 1172">whether credible, significant and relevant to the review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.9">citing from="[2006] FCA 1172">relevant to credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.10">citing from="[2006] FCA 1172">no adverse findings in respect of credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.11">citing from="[2006] FCA 1172">whether provision of the file note could have made any difference to the result</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 1110">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 1110">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 1110">whether errors by interpreter affected tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 1110">failure to tender transcript before federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.4">citing from="[2006] FCA 1110">evidence on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.5">citing from="[2006] FCA 1110">breach of s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.6">citing from="[2006] FCA 1110">whether a separate and independent line of reasoning disclosed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 568">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 568">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 568">refusal of protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 568">error identified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 568">exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 568">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 715" id="cs0">The Minister's solicitor cited Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala [2000] HCA 57 ; (2000) 204 CLR 82 at [58] , where reference is made to a situation where "the decision-maker was bound by the governing statute to refuse" the substantive application. There is also authority in the Federal Court that relief may be appropriately refused where on uncontested evidence the Tribunal is bound to arrive at the same decision (compare SZECD v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 31 ; (2006) 150 FCR 53 at 62, and also Pradabsuk v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 66 ; (2006) 150 FCR 584 at [51] and [54]). The principle is supported in Lee v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCAFC 62 ; (2007) 159 FCR 181 at [48] , where it is said: "it must be quite clear that a rehearing or reconsideration is or will be futile" . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 91" id="cs1">

42 In coming to that conclusion, the Federal Magistrate did not accept the conclusion of the single Judge in SZECD [2006] FCA 31 ; 150 FCR 53 that Li was inconsistent with Yilmaz and should not be followed. For the reasons we have given, we have come to the same conclusion. We should observe, however, that the principles of precedent required that the Federal Magistrate follow the decision in SZECD , being a decision of this Court in the appellate jurisdiction from the Federal Magistrates Court. We do not think that it was open to her Honour to regard what was said in SZECD as obiter. In this regard the observations of Lord Simon of Glaisdale in Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd [1976] AC 443 at 478 are apposite, though his Lordship was in dissent. His Lordship said:

 It is the duty of the subordinate court to give credence and effect to the [more recent] decision of the immediately higher court, notwithstanding that it may appear to conflict with the [earlier] decision of a still higher court. The decision of the still higher must be assumed to have been correctly distinguished (or otherwise interpreted) in the decision of the immediately higher court.

See also the valuable guidance in this respect in the judgment of Moffitt P in Proctor v Jetway Aviation Pty Ltd [1984] 1 NSWLR 166 , in particular at 177-180. 22 The submissions of the Minister were to the effect that Yilmaz and Li were inconsistent. In SZECD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 31 ; (2006) 150 FCR 53 , a single Judge of this Court (exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the Court under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 25(1A)) was of the same view. In our view, Yilmaz and Li are not inconsistent; rather, they are consistent, if one accepts the premises on which each is founded. 144 Y i lmaz and Li were subsequently considered by Bennett J in SZECD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 31 ; (2006) 150 FCR 53. In SZECD, the appellant had made a second application to the Department for a protection visa, on the basis that the first application had been invalid. The first application had not included any information relating to the appellant's claims for protection and although it referred to "my statutory declaration", no such document was provided to the Department. 74 If there was no valid application and if the Federal Magistrate was wrong in deciding the application on the basis of SZECD [2006] FCA 31 ; 150 FCR 53 , it is still necessary to consider whether relief should be awarded.
  70 For the reasons already given, we are of the view that SZECD [2006] FCA 31 ; 150 FCR 53 was wrongly decided, and to that extent, not a basis for upholding the Tribunal's decision. 161 The appellant was represented by counsel and solicitors. The appellant contended that the Minister made an error of law in treating the earlier visa application as a valid application under the Act and by reason of that error, failed or refused to exercise jurisdiction. The Minister argued that the first visa application was a valid application because the appellant had made claims before the Tribunal which were considered and determined by it. Any defect in the first visa application was cured by the Tribunal's consideration and determination of the applicant's claims. The Minister relied on the Full Court's judgment in Yilmaz v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 906 ; (2000) 100 FCR 495 and SZECD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 31 ; (2006) 150 FCR 53.  69 The Federal Magistrate concluded that he was bound by SZECD [2006] FCA 31 ; 150 FCR 53 to hold that the supply of Part C to the Tribunal enabled the Tribunal to undertake a "review" of the mother's claims and affirm the decision about the mother.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1492" id="cs2">27. He submitted that the Court should consider the decision of SZECD v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [10] , and although that decision referred to the Refugee Review Tribunal the submission goes that the RRT was the review body subject essentially in respect of the validity of applications before it, the same statutory regime as the MRT. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 473" id="cs3">Accordingly, it is submitted that the second Tribunal was entitled to rely on a statement the applicant gave the first Tribunal: SZECD v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 31 at [32] per Bennett J.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 335" id="cs4">Counsel for the First Respondent contended that the Purported Protection Visa Application was a valid application because the Applicant made claims before the Tribunal which were considered and determined by it in the conduct of its review of the delegate's decision refusing the Purported Protection Visa Application. The First Respondent submitted that the provision by the Applicant of his claims to the Tribunal cured any defect in the Purported Protection Visa Application because the Tribunal considered and determined those claims. In support of that proposition, the First Respondent referred the Court to Yilmaz v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 906 ; (2000) 100 FCR 495 (" Yilmaz ") and SZECD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 31 ; (2006) 150 FCR 53 (" SZECD "). 18. The First Respondent submitted that the authorities are relevantly summarised by Bennett J in SZECD and that this Court is bound by the decision in SZECD that consideration by the Tribunal of the Applicant's claims made to the Tribunal cured any invalidity of the Purported Protection Visa Application.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 178" id="cs5">

 (c) whether the Applicant had otherwise made a declaration to acquire Armenian citizenship.
 Submissions and reasons

 14. Both counsel appearing in this matter have analysed the case as having conflicting authorities, namely Minister for Immigration v Li [2000] FCA 1456 ; (2000) 103 FCR 486 (" Li ") per Ryan, Sackville and Emmett JJ on one side and SZECD v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 31 (" SZECD ") per Bennett J on the other. Mr Foreman for the applicant submits that the conflict should be resolved by preferring the approach in Li . Mr Kennett argues that SZECD discussed conflicting authorities in existence at the time, namely Li on one side and Yilmaz v Minister for Immigration [2000] FCA 906 ; (2000) 100 FCR 495 (" Yilmaz "), Minister for Immigration v Ahmed [2005] FCAFC 58 ; (2005) 143 FCR 314 (" Ahmed ") and Uddin v Minister for Immigration [2005] FCAFC 218 (" Uddin ") on the other.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 45" id="cs6"/>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1499" id="cs7">In SZECD v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 31 at [32] , Bennett J ventured the opinion that a failure to disclose information derived from the reasons of an earlier tribunal decision might constitute a breach of s.424A.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1472" id="cs8">In SZECD v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 31 at [32] , her Honour Bennett J identified the likelihood of jurisdictional error where a second RRT adopted reasoning applied by a first RRT in the same matter.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1348" id="cs9">Indeed, in SZECD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Anor [2006] FCA 31 ; (2006) 227 ALR 656 at [23] - [27], Bennett J found that, after considering the authorities, invalidity of an application before the Delegate is cured upon merits review by the Tribunal.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1172" id="cs10">The second respondent submits that VEAL is distinguishable from the present case on the basis of Bennett J's decision in SZECD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 31 ; [2006] FCA 31 ; (2006) 150 FCR 53. In that decision, Bennett J distinguished the decision in VEAL on the basis that although procedural unfairness had been established in respect of one basis of the Tribunal's decision, there was a separate and independent basis for its conclusion which was not affected by procedural unfairness: see at [28], [40]-[41]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1110" id="cs11">31 The question, therefore, is whether, as Smith FM suggests, the decision of the Tribunal can be sustained because there is a separate and independent line of reasoning which is not affected by the breach of s 424A(1): see SZECD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 31 ; [2006] FCA 31 ; (2006) 150 FCR 53. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 568" id="cs12">In the present case there are three other bases upon which the decision may be supported.

 15. Mr Johnson submits that support for this line of reasoning is also found in the following decisions: SZECD v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 31 at [39] - [41] per Bennett J; SZCJH v Minister for Immigration [2005] FCA 1660 at [23] per Sackville J; NAUW v Minister for Immigration [2005] FCA 1086 at [23] - [24] per Moore J; MZWPK v Minister for Immigration [2005] FCA 1256 at [13] per Heerey J; VEAJ v Minister for Immigration [2003] FCA 678 ; (2003) 132 FCR 291 at [54] - [55] per Gray J. 16. In the fourth ground of the original application filed on 1 June 2005, the applicant claims that the interpreter at the Tribunal hearing was not competent in the Indo/Fijian dialect and the parties experienced communication difficulties.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 47 Consideration of valid visa application</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 69 Effect of compliance or non-compliance</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 411 Decisions reviewable by Refugee Review Tribunal</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 412 Application for review by the Refugee Review Tribunal</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 414 Refugee Review Tribunal must review decisions</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 416 Only new information to be considered in later applications for review</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS) ACT 2002 NO. 60, 2002 </title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 524">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 524">application for partner (migrant) (class bc) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 524">visa application refused for absence of genuine and continuing relationship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 524">whether the tribunal breached obligations under ss 359a, 368(1), 360a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 524">whether the tribunal erred by not referring to every piece of evidence in reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 524">whether the tribunal decision not reasonable in weight given to certain evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 524">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 257">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 257">whether tribunal's evaluation of evidence before it was unreasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 257">whether any evidence of bias on the part of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 257">where appellant sought to rely on tribunal transcript not before the federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 257">whether tribunal entitled to make an assumption based on appellant's evidence given at the hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 257">whether the appellant's answer fell within the ambit of s 424a(3)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 257">appeal dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 143">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 143">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 143">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 143">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2008] FMCA 143">application for review of rrt decision affirming a decision of a delegate of the minister refusing to grant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2008] FMCA 143">applicant a citizen of china claiming a fear of persecution as a falun gong practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2008] FMCA 143">no reviewable error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">precedents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">decisions of full court of federal court on questions of statutory construction to be followed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">requirement that earlier decisions be "plainly wrong" migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">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="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">whether failure to disclose country information consulted after hearing constituted denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">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="cp5.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">re the minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte durairajasingham  immigration law and administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee review tribunal decision refusing to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">application in original jurisdiction of high court for prerogative relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations and evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to consider all available inferences from evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether s 430(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth) required the tribunal to refer to evidence contrary to its findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether a breach of s 430(1) amounts to a jurisdictional error grounding prerogative relief.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">role of the high court under the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">extent of high court's jurisdiction to grant certiorari pursuant to s 75(v) of the constitution .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">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="cp8.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">application for review of decision of refugee review tribunal affirming decision not to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">citizen of bangladesh claiming fear of persecution on account of political opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">where applicant had visited india, estonia, sweden and germany before arriving in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">whether tribunal failed to comply with migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">whether tribunal failed to comply with migration regulations 1994 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">use of independent country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">bad faith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">apprehended bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">whether tribunal failed to comply with migration act 1958 s.424</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">no jurisdictional error.  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">federal magistrates court has no power to order that the refugee review tribunal be differently constituted in making an order remitting the application to the tribunal for determination according to law.  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.18">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">where leave granted to file and serve further submissions after the hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.19">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">where applicant did not file any further submission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.20">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">where first respondent filed both a supplementary outline of submissions and an affidavit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.21">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">affidavit filed without leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.22">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1247">affidavit rejected.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 991">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 991">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 991">protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 991">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 991">application for review of decision of refugee review tribunal affirming decision not to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 991">citizen of china claiming fear of persecution as a falun gong practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 991">whether the tribunal breached migration act 1958 (cth) s.424aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 991">credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 991">whether the tribunal breached migration act 1958 s.91r(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">citing from="[2008] FMCA 991">whether tribunal breached migration act 1958 s.424</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">citing from="[2008] FMCA 991">merits review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">citing from="[2008] FMCA 991">credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">citing from="[2008] FMCA 991">information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">citing from="[2008] FMCA 991">information for the purpose of s.424aa means the same as information for the purpose of s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">citing from="[2008] FMCA 991">where tribunal telephoned a person to obtain information about the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.15">citing from="[2008] FMCA 991">whether jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.16">citing from="[2008] FMCA 991">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.17">citing from="[2008] FMCA 991">mandamus.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1097">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1097">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1097">protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1097">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1097">application for review of rrt decision affirming a decision of a delegate refusing to grant a protection visa to the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1097">applicant is a citizen of south africa claiming fear of persecution for reasons of his indian race</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1097">no reviewable error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1006">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1006">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1006">protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1006">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1006">application for review of decision of refugee review tribunal affirming decision not to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1006">citizen of sri lanka claiming fear of persecution on the basis of political opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1006">where applicant submitted photographs to the tribunal that had been falsified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1006">allegation of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1006">whether tribunal made a procedural error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1006">credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1006">no jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 760">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 760">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 760">protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 760">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 760">application for review of decision of refugee review tribunal affirming decision not to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 760">citizens of india who are husband and wife</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 760">applicants claiming fear of persecution from wife's father who holds a different political opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 760">first applicant claims a previous association with shiv sena</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 760">first applicant claims to have been threatened by associates of his father in law who supports the congress party in india</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">citing from="[2008] FMCA 760">where applicants claim that the tribunal failed to consider the real chance that the first applicant's father in law would continue to persecute him for reason of his actual or imputed political opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">citing from="[2008] FMCA 760">where applicants claim that the tribunal failed to consider an integer of the applicants' claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">citing from="[2008] FMCA 760">merits review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">citing from="[2008] FMCA 760">no reviewable error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 787">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 787">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 787">subclass 571 schools sector visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 787">application for review of decision of the migration review tribunal affirming a decision to cancel the applicant's subclass 571 schools sector visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 787">condition 8202</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 787">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 787">whether tribunal failed to comply with migration act 1958 (cth) s 359a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 787">illogicality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 787">whether tribunal fell into jurisdictional error by reaching an illogical conclusion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">citing from="[2008] FMCA 787">whether tribunal erred in making credibility findings against a counsellor who did not give evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">citing from="[2008] FMCA 787">exceptional circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">citing from="[2008] FMCA 787">whether the reasoning in dai v minister for immigration and citizenship [2007] fcafc 199 in relation to condition 8202(3)(b) applies equally to condition 8202(3)(a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">citing from="[2008] FMCA 787">whether the entirety of condition 8202 is invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.13">citing from="[2008] FMCA 787">merits review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.14">citing from="[2008] FMCA 787">impermissible review of merits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.15">citing from="[2008] FMCA 787">role of migration review tribunal to determine facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.16">citing from="[2008] FMCA 787">task of judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.17">citing from="[2008] FMCA 787">credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.18">citing from="[2008] FMCA 787">whether tribunal failed to comply with migration act 1958 (cth) s 360.  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.19">citing from="[2008] FMCA 787">post-hearing submission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.20">citing from="[2008] FMCA 787">inappropriate for parties to make post-hearing submissions without leave.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 837">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 837">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 837">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 837">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 837">application for review of rrt decision affirming decision of a delegate of the minister refusing to grant a protection visa to the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 837">applicant is a citizen of china claiming fear of persecution for reason that he is a falun gong practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 837">no reviewable error.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1247" id="cs0">The Applicant's submission then went on to restate factual matters that went to the merits of his claim for a protection visa. It is well established that the Court, in conducting a judicial review of the Tribunal decision, cannot review the factual merits of the decision reached by the Tribunal, so this part of the submission cannot be considered ( SZLHA v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [19] at [5]; Minister for Immigration  Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [20] at 272).  PRACTICE  PROCEDURE --- Where leave granted to file and serve further submissions after the hearing --- where applicant did not file any further submission --- where first respondent filed both a supplementary outline of submissions and an affidavit --- affidavit filed without leave --- affidavit rejected. Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss.91R , 422B , 424 , 424A , 424B , 474
 SZEPZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCAFC 107 followed. Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58 ; (1995) 184 CLR 163
 NARV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 203 ALR 494 ; [2003] FCAFC 262
 SZLHA v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 782 followed. Minister for Immigration  Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 ; [1996] HCA 6 followed. Abebe v Commonwealth [1999] HCA 14 ; (1999) 197 CLR 510 ; 162 ALR 1
 VQAB v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 104
 SZJHP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 119 followed.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 991" id="cs1">The Tribunal made findings of fact which were open to it on the evidence. The task of making findings of fact, including findings as to credibility, is for the Tribunal alone ( SZLHA v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [22] , at [5], citing Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [23] . The Court cannot conduct a merits review of the Tribunal's decision ( Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [24] ; SZHCJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [25] at [3]; SZLHM v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [26] at [8] --- [9]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1097" id="cs2">This of course is a well established proposition and has been re-stated in various appeals from this Court such as SZHCJ v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs, [9] SZLHA v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [10] and SZLHM v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [11] , where Flick J referred specifically to a decision of the High Court in Attorney General New South Wales v Quin [12] , particularly the decision of Brennan J at [35] and [36]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1006" id="cs3">Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6 ; (1996) 185 CLR 259 followed. Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs (1998) 86 FCR 547 followed. SZLHA v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 782 followed. Applicant: SZLSE
 First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION  CITIZENSHIP
 Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
 File Number: SYG 3708 of 2007
 Judgment of: Scarlett FM
 Hearing date: 19 June 2008
 Date of Last Submission: 19 June 2008
 Delivered at: Sydney
 Delivered on: 24 July 2008
 REPRESENTATION
 Applicant: Appeared in Person
 Solicitors for the Applicant: Not represented
 Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Hanstein
 Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
 ORDERS

 (1) The Application is dismissed. (2) The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $4,500.00. The Applicant's Ground 1(e) claims that the Tribunal made incorrect findings about the Applicant's credibility based on a misunderstanding of the medical certificate that he submitted. This again is no more than an impermissible attempt to review the factual merits of the decision reached by the Tribunal and should be rejected. The task of making findings of fact, including findings as to credibility, is for the Tribunal alone ( Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [24] ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 760" id="cs4">In the recent decision of SZLHA v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [12] , an appeal from this court, Flick J succinctly sets the considerations relevant to impermissible attempts to review the factual merits of a decision reached by the Refugee Review Tribunal or the Migration Review Tribunal: A court conducting judicial review of an administrative decision must "beware of turning a review of the reasons of the decision-maker upon proper principles into a reconsideration of the merits of the decision": Minister for Immigration  Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6 ; 185 CLR 259 at 272 per Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ. The "weight' to be given to the evidence or particular pieces of information is for the Tribunal to assess: Abebe v Commonwealth [1999] HCA 14 at [197] , [1999] HCA 14 ; 197 CLR 510 at 580... The task of making findings of fact, including findings of credibility, is for the Tribunal alone: Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1126 ; [1998] FCA 1126 ; (1998) 86 FCR 547 at 552, 559 [13] .  In the recent decision of SZLHA v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [12] , an appeal from this court, Flick J succinctly sets the considerations relevant to impermissible attempts to review the factual merits of a decision reached by the Refugee Review Tribunal or the Migration Review Tribunal: A court conducting judicial review of an administrative decision must "beware of turning a review of the reasons of the decision-maker upon proper principles into a reconsideration of the merits of the decision": Minister for Immigration  Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6 ; 185 CLR 259 at 272 per Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ. The "weight' to be given to the evidence or particular pieces of information is for the Tribunal to assess: Abebe v Commonwealth [1999] HCA 14 at [197] , [1999] HCA 14 ; 197 CLR 510 at 580... The task of making findings of fact, including findings of credibility, is for the Tribunal alone: Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1126 ; [1998] FCA 1126 ; (1998) 86 FCR 547 at 552, 559 [13] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 787" id="cs5">There is no illogicality. The ground is an attempt to challenge the Tribunal's factual finding about his attendance and is no more than an attempt to engage in merits review. It is well established that a court conducting judicial review of an administrative decision must beware of turning a review of the reasons of the decision-maker upon proper principles into a reconsideration of the merits of the decision ( SZLHA v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [17] at [5], citing Minister for Immigration  Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [18] ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 837" id="cs6">The first thing that should be made clear in dealing with this ground is that it amounts to a request to the Court to review the factual merits of the Tribunal's decision. I refer to a recent decision by Flick J in an appeal from this Court, SZLHA v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [11] , handed down on 28 th May 2008. His Honour said: A Court conducting judicial review of an administrative decision must "beware of turning a review of the reasons for the decision maker upon proper principles into a reconsideration of the merits of the decision". Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) HCA 6 185 CLR 259 272, Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh, Gummow. The weight to be given to the evidence or particular pieces of information is for the Tribunal to assess Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) HCA 14 97 197 CLR 510 580. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 426 Applicant may request Refugee Review Tribunal to call witnesses</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 760" id="cs0">1 I have before me an application this morning for the termination of an order for the winding up of the first defendant, Arizcorp Pty Ltd, pursuant to orders that were made on 29 February 2008. The matter was last before the Court on 24 April 2008 and adjourned on terms to this morning. The history of the matter is recited in ex tempore reasons I delivered on 24 April 2008 and I do not propose to go into the reasons at great length except that it might be convenient to simply quote what I said on that occasion ( Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Arizcorp Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2008] FCA 580). At para [3] , I said this:
 The history of the matter involves a statutory demand made by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (which I will refer to as the ATO) in relation to taxation liabilities due to the Commonwealth by the first defendant company. Taxation returns under the PAYE regime have not been lodged in 1999 and 2000 and after the introduction of the BAS protocols taxation returns were not lodged throughout a number of years. The end result of the ultimate lodgement of returns and assessment of the unpaid tax was that an amount of $631,955.71, among perhaps some other moneys, became payable to the commissioner. The company has fully paid that amount of money.  1 I have before me an application this morning for the termination of an order for the winding up of the first defendant, Arizcorp Pty Ltd, pursuant to orders that were made on 29 February 2008. The matter was last before the Court on 24 April 2008 and adjourned on terms to this morning. The history of the matter is recited in ex tempore reasons I delivered on 24 April 2008 and I do not propose to go into the reasons at great length except that it might be convenient to simply quote what I said on that occasion ( Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Arizcorp Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2008] FCA 580). At para [3] , I said this:
 The history of the matter involves a statutory demand made by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (which I will refer to as the ATO) in relation to taxation liabilities due to the Commonwealth by the first defendant company. Taxation returns under the PAYE regime have not been lodged in 1999 and 2000 and after the introduction of the BAS protocols taxation returns were not lodged throughout a number of years. The end result of the ultimate lodgement of returns and assessment of the unpaid tax was that an amount of $631,955.71, among perhaps some other moneys, became payable to the commissioner. The company has fully paid that amount of money. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 10">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 10">application by bankrupt for orders against trustee in bankruptcy under s 179 of the bankruptcy act 1966 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 10">where bankrupt was unsuccessful respondent in separate proceedings in federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 10">where bankrupt appealed prior to bankruptcy against substantive orders and costs order made in separate federal court proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 10">where appeals deemed to be abandoned by trustee in bankruptcy by virtue of s 60(3) of bankruptcy act 1966 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 10">where trustee in bankruptcy has decided not in interests of bankrupt estate to prosecute the appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 10">whether trustee in bankruptcy may apply under s 33(1) of the bankruptcy act 1966 (cth) for extension of time within which to elect to prosecute appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 10">where trustee in bankruptcy has decided not in interests of bankrupt estate to prosecute the appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 10">whether trustee's decision a basis for orders under s 178 or s 179 of bankruptcy act 1966 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 10">relevant principles. held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 10">no basis in fact to impugn trustee's decision that not in interests of bankrupt estate to prosecute the appeals under s 178 or s 179 of bankrupcy act 1966 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 10">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1336">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1336">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1336">application for security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1336">discretionary nature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1336">consideration of relevant factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1336">promptness of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1336">stifling of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1336">prospects of success of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">sequestration order made by registrar</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">rehearing of petition by federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">whether valid service of bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">whether appellant was solvent procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">where appellant self-represented</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">whether appellant given sufficient time to present evidence and submissions on review application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">whether motion to adduce further evidence should have been allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">whether cross-examination on affidavits should have been allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">ostensibly biased against applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FMCA 870">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FMCA 870">sequestration order made by registrar</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FMCA 870">review application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FMCA 870">evidence of solvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] FMCA 870">'other sufficient cause'.  federal magistrates act 1999 , ss.1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] FMCA 870">3 . 104 (2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1035">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1035">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1035">rule that costs follow the event</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1035">indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1035">whether conduct of second respondent warranted order for costs on an indemnity basis.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">meetings of directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">extraordinary general meetings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">notice of meetings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">quorum at meetings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">compliance with constitution and corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">where no notice or inadequate notice of meetings given to some directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">where no quorum at meetings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">whether meetings validly convened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">effect on resolutions purportedly passed at meetings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">removal of directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">procedure under constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">constructive resignation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1984] FCA 34">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1984] FCA 34">security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1984] FCA 34">jurisdiction of court to make order against limited liability company which is an applicant in proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1984] FCA 34">matters relevant to exercise of judge's discretion.  federal court of australia act 1976 , sub-sec. 56(1), s. 59 , order 28 of the rules  judiciary act 1903 , s.79  companies code 1981 (q.)  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1984] FCA 34">security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1984] FCA 34">bases of jurisdiction to make orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1984] FCA 34">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1984] FCA 34">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), ss 56(1) , 59</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1984] FCA 34">federal court rules 1979 (cth), o. 28</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1984] FCA 34">companies code 1981 (qld), s. 553. held: (1) the jurisdiction of the federal court to make orders for security for costs under the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), s. 56(1) was not limited to the circumstances envisaged by o. 28.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 254">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 254">security for costs of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 254">whether appellant should provide security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 254">whether appellant impecunious</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 254">whether order for security for costs would stifle appeal while allowing cross-appeal to proceed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 254">relevance of fact that appellant was defendant in proceeding below</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 254">whether estimate of costs of appeal excessive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 273">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 273">application for security for costs in an appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 273">relevant considerations in deciding whether security for costs should be awarded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 273">whether appellant is impecunious</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 273">whether there is a matter of public importance raised on the appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 273">undertakings to the court regarding costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 89">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 89">judgment and orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 89">stay of execution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 89">consideration of whether the appellant demonstrated an appropriate case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 89">special or exceptional circumstances not necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 89">whether the appeal will be rendered nugatory if stay not granted is a relevant factor  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 89">security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 89">approach to impecuniosity of appellant fundamentally different on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 89">consideration of what amounts to impecuniosity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 89">consideration of appellant's prospects of success of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 89">only a preliminary assessment is needed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 89">does the appellant have an arguable case  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 89">application for leave to adduce new factual and legal issues on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">citing from="[2010] FCA 89">adequate explanation for failure to raise these issues at first instance is needed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">citing from="[2010] FCA 89">consideration of whether the new issues have merit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.15">citing from="[2010] FCA 89">consideration of whether the respondent will suffer any prejudice if leave granted and whether that can be remedied</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FWA 2910" id="cs0">10 ibid at 26; Clack v Collins (No 1) [2010] FCA 513 (21 May 2010) at [8] per Jago J citing Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 509 at [20] per Mansfield J; Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 90 per Sundberg J; Skyring v Sweeney [1999] FCA 61 at [6] and Cowell v Taylor (1885) 31 Ch D 34 at 38 per Bowen LJ.  3 Meribee Pastoral v ANZ Banking Group op. cit. at 513-514; Clack v Collins op. cit. at 8 per Jago J citing: Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 509 at [20] per Mansfield J; Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 90 per Sundberg J; Skyring v Sweeney [1999] FCA 61 at [6] and Cowell v Taylor (1885) 31 Ch D 34 at 38 per Bowen LJ. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 254" id="cs1">In Paton v Campbell Capital Limited [1993] FCA 449 this was described as placing "something of an onus" on the party seeking the order to satisfy the court that such an order should properly be made" (at [6]). (3) Appeals attract different considerations from trials at first instance. As stated at [8]-[9] in Clack v Collins :

 [8] In Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 509 at [20] Mansfield J referred with approval to the decision in Cowell v Taylor (1885) 31 Ch D 34 at 38. In that case, Bowen LJ said:

 The general rule is that poverty is no bar to a litigant, that, from time immemorial, has been the rule at common law, and also, I believe, in equity. There is an exception in the case of appeals, but there the appellant has had the benefit of a decision by one of Her Majesty's courts, and so an insolvent party is not excluded from the courts, but only prevented, if he cannot find security, from dragging his opponent from one court to another.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 513" id="cs2">In Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 509 at [20] Mansfield J referred with approval to the decision in Cowell v Taylor (1885) 31 Ch D 34 at 38. In that case, Bowen LJ said:

 The general rule is that poverty is no bar to a litigant, that, from time immemorial, has been the rule at common law, and also, I believe, in equity. There is an exception in the case of appeals, but there the appellant has had the benefit of a decision by one of Her Majesty's courts, and so an insolvent party is not excluded from the courts, but only prevented, if he cannot find security, from dragging his opponent from one court to another.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 273" id="cs3">A single judge has power to order the provision of security for costs of an appeal: Croker v Deputy Registrar of the High Court of Australia [2003] FCA 681 at [2] per Hely J; and Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 509 per Mansfield J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 89" id="cs4">As to the second and third matters on this list, while impecuniosity is generally regarded as a significant factor in ordering security for costs at first instance, the situation is fundamentally different on appeal because, by then, the unsuccessful party will have already had the opportunity to exercise the jurisdiction of the Court and the question changes to: should the unsuccessful party be allowed to force the successful party into another Court whilst being unable to meet the costs that may be awarded if he or she is again unsuccessful: see Cowell v Taylor (1885) 31 Ch D 34 at 38 per Bowen LJ; Skyring v Sweeney [1999] FCA 61 at [6] per Spender J; Thompson v Robinson [2005] QCA 253 at [6] per Keane JA and Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 509 at [20] to [21] per Mansfield J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 205" id="cs5">14 The word "oppressive" is used in this area to describe an application for security that is used merely to deny an impecunious applicant a right to litigate. See Jianshe Southern at [27]. As a general rule poverty is not a bar to a litigant at first instance. However the position is different as to appeals. In Skyring v Sweeney [1999] FCA 61 at [6] Spender J said:

 Impecuniosity ought not to be a bar to a person prosecuting at first instance a claim, but the position on appeal seems to me to be fundamentally different. In effect, in the absence of an order for security for costs in the circumstances of this case, Mr Skyring, in effect, is given a free hit, and that seems to me to be intrinsically unfair.

See also Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 509 at [20] to [21].</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 60 Stay of legal proceedings</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 178 Appeal to Court against trustee's decision etc.</title>
<title id="l3">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 179 Control of trustees by the Court</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 4 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 35A Powers of Registrars</title>
<title id="l3">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l4">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 84 Parties</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>