Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">forge v australian securities and investments commission  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">chapter iii</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">state supreme courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">acting judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">section 37 of the supreme court act 1970 (nsw) provided for appointments to act as a judge, for a period not exceeding 12 months</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">former federal court judge appointed as an acting judge of the supreme court of new south wales under a series of commissions pursuant to s 37 of the supreme court act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">whether the appointments as an acting judge were validly made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">whether s 37 of the supreme court act was valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">whether acting judges, when appointed other than on an occasional and exceptional basis, substantially impair public confidence in the supreme court's institutional integrity and impartiality and prevent that court from answering to the constitutional description of "supreme court of any state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">distinctions between permanent judges and acting judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">significance of a substantial increase in the number of acting judges appointed to the supreme court, the incidence of reappointing such acting judges and the duration of such appointments since 1989</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">whether changes in appointments of acting judges amounts to a fundamental alteration of the character and composition of the supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">relevance of the fact that acting judges are typically retired judges.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">no objection to the appointment of the acting judge in question taken at trial or on appeal to the new south wales court of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">whether parties contesting the validity of appointment prevented from doing so by reason of acquiescence or waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">opposing parties did not submit acquiescence or waiver, if any, prevented objection to validity of appointment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">whether high court should consider effect of acquiescence or waiver.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">vesting in state courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">federal character of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">power of state parliament to confer function incompatible with exercise by state court of federal judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">whether appointments of acting judges in large numbers consistent with judicial process and chapter iii of the constitution .  judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">acting judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.23">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">validity of orders made by acting judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.24">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">whether such orders valid regardless of validity of appointment of the acting judge by reason of the de facto officers doctrine.  corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.25">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">transitional provisions of ch 10 of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.26">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">asic brought proceedings, in 2001, against the parties contesting validity of the appointment of the acting judge in question alleging contravention, in 1998, of civil penalty provisions of the corporations law of new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.27">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">whether, after the repeal of the relevant civil penalty  provisions of the state corporations law and the enactment of the corporations act , the proceedings alleging contravention could be brought.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 43">singh v commonwealth of australia  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 43">legislative powers of the parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 43">power to make laws with respect to naturalization and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 43">meaning of "aliens"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 43">plaintiff born in australia to non-citizen parents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 43">infant plaintiff not a citizen under the australian citizenship act 1948 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 43">plaintiff's parents citizens of india</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 43">whether plaintiff an alien under s 51(xix) of the constitution .  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 43">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 43">interpretive theories</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 43">significance of historical context in constitutional interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 43">use of convention debates.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 43">legislative powers of the parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2004] HCA 43">whether migration act 1958 (cth), s 198 validly authorises the removal of a non-alien from australia because that person is a non-citizen under the australian citizenship act 1948 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">literal meaning unambiguous</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">draftsman's mistake</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">parliament's intention clear from context and legislative history</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 80b (5), 80c (3).  income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">losses of previous years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">holding company and subsidiary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">arrangement by continuing shareholder for purpose of enabling company to take previous year's losses into account for deduction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 80, 80b, 80c (3).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2010] AATA 1050">higher education learning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2010] AATA 1050">whether tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2010] AATA 1050">no confirmed, varied or set aside decision for the tribunal to consider</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2010] AATA 1050">no jurisdiction.    higher education support act 2003 (cth), ss 209-5, 209-10, 212-1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2010] AATA 253">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2010] AATA 253">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2010] AATA 253">whether tribunal has jurisdiction to review a reconsideration decision not to vary the period for which a residential care service is to be accredited</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2010] AATA 253">authority of federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2010] AATA 253">tribunal has no jurisdiction.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] AATA 1050" id="cs0">The Federal Court's decision in Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Ltd v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2009] FCA 1514 reminds us that the Tribunal must conscientiously observe the provisions in a statute which confer jurisdiction. I accept that the provisions referred to by the respondent have the contended effect. It follows the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with Ms Froeemcke's application.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] AATA 253" id="cs1">As a preliminary matter, I have to decide whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decision not to vary the period of accreditation which, in this case, is two years. I am mindful that a similar issue came before Senior Member McCabe in Brisbane who found that the AAT had jurisdiction. However in the appeal from Senior McCabe's decision, Collier J, in Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Ltd v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2009] FCA 1514 , ( Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Ltd v Administrative Appeals Tribunal ) held that the AAT does not have jurisdiction to review a decision made pursuant to section 2.32 of the Principles not to vary a period of accreditation made under section 7.1 of the Principles. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">AGED CARE ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l2">AGED CARE ACT 1997 - SECT 7.1 Pre-conditions to receiving subsidy</title>
<title id="l3">AGED CARE ACT 1997 - SECT 7.2 Approvals may be restricted</title>
<title id="l4">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 21 Declarations of right</title>
<title id="l7">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l8">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1234">i have inspected the six documents that were said to relate to the iron filings claim. my inspection of awb's documents revealed a further four documents that fall within this category and are still the subject of a privilege claim. i am satisfied that these 10 documents are not privileged, as the documents were brought into existence in furtherance of an improper and dishonest purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1234">inflating the prices of contracts a1670 and a1680 so as to extract payments out of the united nations' escrow account that would then be utilised, in part, to satisfy a compensation claim by gbi. the evidence establishes to the requisite standard that the transaction was deliberately and dishonestly structured by awb and gbi so as to misrepresent the true nature and purpose of the trucking fees and to work a trickery on the united nations. it would be contrary to public policy for the privilege to enure in communications of this kind.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1297">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1297">registered designs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1297">components for wardrobe doors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1297">whether registered designs invalid by reason of prior art or because not distinctive over fundamental form</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1297">whether registered designs novel or original</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1297">whether registered designs infringed. designs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1297">infringement alleged in respect of components for wardrobe door</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1297">issues of obvious or fraudulent imitation. evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1297">whether evidence of prior publication and prior use admissible.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">application that respondent's costs of certain issues be paid on indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">discussion of applicable principles.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">trade name</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">essentially descriptive words</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">necessity for distinctive or secondary meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">rationale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">logic and policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">substantial evidence necessary to establish secondary meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">mere expression of confusion or belief by individuals insufficient.  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">both parties successful on some issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">unsuccessful on others</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">discretion of trial judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">matter of impression and evaluation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">criminal justice commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">requirement to report to parliamentary committee, speaker of legislative assembly and minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">report on gaming machine concerns and regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">recommendation to exclude certain persons from gaming machine industry in state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">no opportunity given to answer matters raised in reports</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">whether duty of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">whether right or interest adversely affected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">legitimate expectation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">criminal justice act 1989 (q.), ss 2.1(1), 2.14, 2.15, 2.18, 3.17, 3.21(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">gaming machine act 1991 (q.), s. 6.16(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">application under s.82 and accrued jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">judgment in favour of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">form of judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">whether injunctive relief appropriate  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">applicant unsuccessful in many of the issues raised by him</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">whether entitled to costs of the action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">award of costs in discretion of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">summary of principles upon which discretion exercised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">mines and minerals (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">exploration licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">grant of licence "from" specified day</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">when period commenced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">application to be made not later than one month before expiry of licence or renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">whether clear month</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">mining act, 1906 (as amended) (n.s.w.), ss. 46 (3), 83b (13).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">supreme court (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">equitable jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">declaration of right</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">extent of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">whether mining act, 1906 (n.s.w.) qualifies power to grant remedy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">equity act, 1901 (as amended) (n.s.w.), s. 10.*  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">construction and interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">commencement of licence "from" specified day</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">when term commences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">renewal of licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">application to be made "not later than one month before expiry" of licence or renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">whether clear month</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.21">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">interpretation act, 1897 (n.s.w.), s. 35 (ii).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 165">category: no</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2011] NSWCA 6">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2011] NSWCA 6">meaning of "settlement offer"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2011] NSWCA 6">whether offer to settle genuine offer to settle proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2011] NSWCA 6">reasonableness of offer as regards prospects of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2011] NSWCA 6">time offer made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2011] NSWCA 6">relevance of ultimate success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2011] NSWCA 6">s 48a defamation act 1974 (nsw)costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2011] NSWCA 6">offer of compromise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">citing from="[2011] NSWCA 6">interest accruing after offer of compromise made not to be taken account in determining whether offeror obtained judgment no less favourable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">citing from="[2011] NSWCA 6">uniform civil procedure rules 2005 , 42.14, 42.16 costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">citing from="[2011] NSWCA 6">application of general rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">citing from="[2011] NSWCA 6">uniform civil procedure rules 42.1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">citing from="[2011] NSWCA 6">discretion to award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">citing from="[2011] NSWCA 6">multiple issues in proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">citing from="[2011] NSWCA 6">costs orders to reflect degree of success of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 973">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 973">whether global assessment or issue by issue approach appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 973">applicable principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] NSWDC 204">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] NSWDC 204">various applications for special costs orders including a sanderson order or bullock order and orders for indemnity costs following service of offers of compromise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] NSWDC 204">application for an order that interest run on unpaid party/party costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2010] NSWDC 206">interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2010] NSWDC 206">calculation of interest under s 100  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2010] NSWDC 206">applications for special costs orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 624">category: no</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 65">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 65">sentencing appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 65">union organiser took action to procure a stoppage of work on a building site</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 65">whether trial judge took into account incorrect or irrelevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 65">re-exercise of sentencing discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 65">declarations of contravention sought by parties by consent lacking certainty and precision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 65">principles governing crown appeals against sentence pecuniary penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 65">sentencing appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 65">whether manifestly inadequate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 65">determination of appropriate penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 332">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 332">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 332">summary judgment and strike out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 332">requirements of 'no reasonable prospect of success'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 332">whether a strike out is more appropriate than summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 332">s 31a federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 332">o 11 r 16 federal court rules (cth)   intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 332">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 332">facts necessary to give rise to a claim of conversion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 332">whether there is an 'infringing copy'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 332">s 116 copyright act 1968 (cth)   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 332">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 332">whether both parties were partially successful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 332">whether costs should be awarded to a party</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 165" id="cs0">That leaves the issue of Direct Share's application for a declaration that LM Investments contravened s 173 of the Act. The making of a declaration and the terms in which it should be framed are in the Court's discretion: see Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd [1972] HCA 61 ; (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 437-9; [1972] HCA 61 ; [1972-73] ALR 1303 at 1313 per Gibbs J; Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10 ; (1992) 175 CLR 564 at 581-2 and 596-7; [1992] HCA 10 ; 106 ALR 11 at 21-2 and 33-4 and AWB Ltd v Cole (No 6) (2006) 235 ALR 307 ; [2006] FCA 1274 at [5] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] NSWCA 6" id="cs1">If the appellant loses on a separate issue argued on the appeal which has increased the time taken in hearing the appeal, then a special order for costs may be appropriate which deprives the appellant of the costs of that issue: Sydney City Council v Geftlick  Ors (No 2) [2006] NSWCA 374 (at [27]).

 8 Whether an order contrary to the general rule that costs follow the event should be made depends on the circumstances of the case viewed against the wide discretionary powers of the court, which powers should be liberally construed: State of New South Wales v Stanley [2007] NSWCA 330 (at [18]) per Hislop J (with whom Beazley JA and Tobias JJA agreed). 9 ... A separable issue for these purposes can relate to 'any disputed question of fact or law' before a court on which a party fails, notwithstanding that they are otherwise successful in terms of the ultimate outcome of the matter: James and Ors v Surf Road Nominees Pty Ltd and Ors [No 2] [2005] NSWCA 296 (at [34]) ..."

 I would add to those observations a reference to Young J's remarks in AWB Ltd v Cole (No 6) [2006] FCA 1274 ; (2006) 235 ALR 307 which usefully collect a number of authorities:

 "[12] AWB submitted that the circumstances do not warrant any departure from the usual approach that an applicant who achieves substantial success should have the costs of the proceedings. AWB relied in particular on the following passage from Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4 (' Cretazzo' ) where Jacobs J said at 16:

 'But trials occur daily in which the party, who in the end is wholly or substantially successful, nevertheless fails along the way on particular issues of fact or law. The ultimate ends of justice may not be served if a party is dissuaded by the risk of costs from canvassing all issues, however doubtful, which might be material to the decision of the case. Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Mahommed (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 6 (11 February 2011)

 [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ WorldLII ] [ Search ] [ Feedback ] Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Appeal You are here: AustLII  Databases  Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Appeal  2011  [2011] NSWCA 6

 [ Database Search ] [ Name Search ] [ Recent Decisions ] [ Noteup ] [ Download ] [ LawCite ] [ Help ] Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Mahommed (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 6 (11 February 2011)
Last Updated: 2 March 2011

 Court of Appeal New South Wales

 Case Title: Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Mahommed (No 2)

 Medium Neutral Citation: [2011] NSWCA 6

 Hearing Date(s): On the papers

 Decision Date: 11 February 2011

 Jurisdiction:

 Before: Spigelman CJ at 1
Beazley JA at 2
McColl JA at 3
McClellan CJ at CL at 74
Bergin CJ in Eq at 79

 Decision: Order the appellant to pay 90 per cent of the respondent's costs of the appeal and of and incidental to the proceedings at first instance including the s 7A hearings, as agreed or assessed. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15 , 36.16 , 36.17 and 36.18 . Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16. ]

 Catchwords: COSTS - meaning of "settlement offer" - whether offer to settle genuine offer to settle proceedings - reasonableness of offer as regards prospects of success - time offer made - relevance of ultimate success - s 48A Defamation Act 1974 (NSW)

COSTS - offer of compromise - interest accruing after offer of compromise made not to be taken account in determining whether offeror obtained judgment no less favourable - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 , 42.14, 42.16

COSTS - application of general rule - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 42.1 - discretion to award - multiple issues in proceedings - costs orders to reflect degree of success of parties

WORDS AND PHRASES - "settlement offer"

 Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)
 Defamation Amendment Act 2002 (NSW)
 Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW). Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

 Cases Cited: AWB Ltd v Cole (No 6) [2006] FCA 1274 ; (2006) 235 ALR 307
Channel Seven Sydney Pty Limited v Mahommed [2008] HCATrans 270. Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Mahommed [2010] NSWCA 335
Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Mohammed [2008] NSWCA 21 ; [2008] NSWCA 21 ; (2008) 70 NSWLR 669
Davis v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 946
Elite Protective Personnel Pty Ltd v Salmon (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 373
Mahommed v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 213
Mahommed v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 631
Rochfort v John Fairfax  Sons Ltd [1972] 1 NSWLR 16

 Texts Cited: Defamation Amendment Bill, Second Reading Speech, New South Wales, Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard); 12 November 2002, p 6558

 Category: Consequential orders

 Parties: Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd (Appellant)
Peter Mahommed (Respondent)

 Representation

 - Counsel: Counsel:
KP Smark SC (Appellant)
CA Evatt with RKM Rasmussen and K Rollinson (Respondent)

 - Solicitors: Solicitors:
Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Appellant)
Michael Corrigan Lawyer (Respondent)

 File number(s): CA 2009/40300
 Decision Under Appeal

 - Court / Tribunal: Supreme Court

 - Before: Kirby J

 - Date of Decision: 09 July 2009

 - Citation: Peter Mahommed v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd

 - Court File Number(s) SC 2005/20064

 Publication Restriction:

 JUDGMENT

 SPIGELMAN CJ: I agree with McColl JA

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 973" id="cs2">A global approach was adopted by Young J in AWB Limited v Honourable Terence Rhoderic Hudson Cole (No 6) [2006] FCA 1274 ; (2006) 235 ALR 307 at [10] --- [17]. At [12] --- [17] his Honour said:

 '12 AWB submitted that the circumstances do not warrant any departure from the usual approach that an applicant who achieves substantial success should have the costs of the proceedings. AWB relied in particular on the following passage from Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4 ('Cretazzo') where Jacobs J said at 16:

 'But trials occur daily in which the party, who in the end is wholly or substantially successful, nevertheless fails along the way on particular issues of fact or law.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] NSWDC 204" id="cs3">106. It may also be appropriate, where each party has had substantial success, to order that there be no order as to costs: Hogan v Trustee of the Roman Catholic Church (No 2) [2006] NSWSC 74 at [40] ; Xstrata Qld Ltd v Santos Ltd [2005] QSC 358 ; AWB Ltd v Cole (No 6) [2006] FCA 1274. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] NSWDC 206" id="cs4">28. It may also be appropriate, where each party has had substantial success, to order that there be no order as to costs: Hogan v Trustee of the Roman Catholic Church (No 2) [2006] NSWSC 74 at [40] ; Xstrata Qld Ltd v Santos Ltd [2005] QSC 358 ; AWB Ltd v Cole (No 6) [2006] FCA 1274.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 624" id="cs5">The making of a declaration and the terms in which it should be framed are in the Court's discretion (see Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd [1972] HCA 61 ; (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 437---9 per Gibbs J; and Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10 ; (1992) 175 CLR 564 at 581---2 and 596---7; AWB Ltd v Cole (No 6) ( [2006] FCA 1274 ; 2006) 235 ALR 307 at [5] ). However, any declaration made by the Court should reflect the final outcome of the case with certainty and precision: see Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo Wei Rong (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 579 citing University of New South Wales v Moorhouse [1975] HCA 26 ; (1975) 133 CLR 1 ; Bass v Permanent Trustee Company Limited [1999] HCA 9 ; [1999] HCA 9 ; (1999) 198 CLR 334 at [49] ; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Danoz Direct Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 881 ; (2003) 60 IPR 296 at [260] and K Dharmananda and A Papamatheos (eds), Perspectives on Declaratory Relief (2009) at 101. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 65" id="cs6">

89 Although the making of a declaration and the terms in which it should be framed are in the Court's discretion (see Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd [1972] HCA 61 ; (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 437---9 per Gibbs J; and Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10 ; (1992) 175 CLR 564 at 581---2 and 596---7; AWB Ltd v Cole (No 6) ( [2006] FCA 1274 ; 2006) 235 ALR 307 at [5] ), any declaration made by the Court should reflect the final outcome of the case with certainty and precision: see also Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo Wei Rong (1997) 191 CLR 559 (at 579) citing University of New South Wales v Moorhouse [1975] HCA 26 ; (1975) 133 CLR 1 ; Bass v Permanent Trustee Company Limited [1999] HCA 9 ; (1999) 198 CLR 334 at [49] ; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Danoz Direct Pty Ltd (2003) 60 IPR 296 at [260] and K Dharmananda and A Papamatheos (eds), Perspectives on Declaratory Relief (2009) at 101. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 332" id="cs7">Pursuant to s 43 of the Court Act, the Court has an unfettered general discretion in respect of the award of costs, provided that such discretion is exercised judicially: see Ruddock and Others v Vardarlis and Others (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229 at [9]. The general rule is that costs follow the event: see Ruddock at [11]. In AWB Ltd v Honourable Terrance Rhoderic Hudson Cole (No 6) [2006] FCA 1274 , Young J, at [16]-[17], ordered each party to pay their own costs, given that each had achieved a ' substantial measure of success '. His Honour could not find that either party could be considered the ' successful litigant '. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1826" id="cs8">29 I consider the matter to fall within the principles enunciated by Young J in AWB Ltd v Cole (No 6) [2006] FCA 1274 ; (2006) 235 ALR 307 at [10] - [17] where His Honour said:

 ' [10] AWB sought an order that the respondents pay its costs of the proceedings, including any reserved costs. It argued that the applicant was the successful litigant in material respects. It submitted that, subject to the court's findings concerning waiver and the fraud exception, it had successfully proven that privilege prima facie attached to all but 25 of the documents over which it pressed its claim.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 319">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 319">application of s 424a migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 319">whether tribunal's reasons should be examined</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">citing from="[2011] FMCA 13">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 13">review of a decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 13">country information contained in tribunal decision record does not infer that some importance is given to that evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 13">previous visa applications made by the applicant was not relevant to claims to fear persecutory harm</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 13">dispositive relevance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 13">tribunal misstated at least a part of the correct refugees convention test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 13">tribunal's findings were open to it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">citing from="[2011] FMCA 13">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">citing from="[2011] FMCA 13">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 802">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 802">review of decision of migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 802">whether the applicant complied substantially with condition attached to visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 802">application for judicial review out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 802">tribunal must direct correspondence to an authorised recipient until applicant directs otherwise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 802">tribunal did not breach s.359a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 802">tribunal did engage in the active intellectual process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 802">not in the interests of justice for time to be extended for judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 802">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 512">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 512">review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 512">findings open to tribunal to make</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 512">tribunal complied with s.425 obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 512">whether information "would be" the reason or part of the reason for affirming delegate's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 512">not information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 512">applicant seeking impermissible merits review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 512">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 512">application dismissed.  migration act 1958 (cth), ss.422b , 424a , 425 , 425a , 441a , 441c , 441g  szbel v minister for immigration  multicultural  indigenous affairs [2006] hca 63 ; (2006) 228 clr 152  attorney-general (nsw) v quin (1990) 170 clr 1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 713">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 713">review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 713">whether tribunal failed to comply with obligations under s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 713">whether the tribunal failed to give appropriate weight to evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 713">no failure to comply with obligations under s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 713">weight given to evidence a matter for the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 713">no bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 713">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 713">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 842">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 842">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 842">whether tribunal obliged to give applicant opportunity to obtain more evidence or to attend a second hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 842">whether breach of s.424a of the migration act.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 708">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 708">review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 708">no s.424 letter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 708">tribunal complied with s.425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 708">tribunal complied with s.424aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 708">findings were open to tribunal on what was before it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 708">applicant seeking impermissible merits review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 708">tribunal turned its mind to the task it was jurisdictionally required to consider</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 708">country information fell within exception in s.424a(3)(a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 708">tribunal applied correct tests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2009] FMCA 708">tribunal considered all integers of applicant's claims and claim arising from evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">citing from="[2009] FMCA 708">no bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">citing from="[2009] FMCA 708">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">citing from="[2009] FMCA 708">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 573">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 573">review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 573">finding that applicant could safely and reasonably relocate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 573">no failure to put information pursuant to s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 573">information fell within exceptions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 573">no temporal limitation of s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 573">information not information that "would be" the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 573">findings open to tribunal on material before it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 573">tribunal considered applicant's claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 573">no bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">citing from="[2009] FMCA 573">no bad faith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">citing from="[2009] FMCA 573">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">citing from="[2009] FMCA 573">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">review of the decision of the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">whether the contents of a letter "would be" the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review pursuant to s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">whether the contents of a letter were "information" pursuant to s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">tribunal's letter discharged its obligations under s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">contents of a letter not "information" as distinct from the letter itself</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">tribunal's adverse view of contents of a letter not "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">findings open to tribunal on what was before it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">tribunal put to applicant issues dispositive of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">tribunal did not misunderstand or misapply relevant law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 504">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 504">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 504">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 504">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 413">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 413">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 413">whether a letter seeking ministerial intervention after the date of the delegate's decision is information given during the process that led to the decision under review within s.424a(3)(ba) of the migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 413">inconsistencies and omissions as "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 413">whether requirements of s.424aa met</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 413">interaction of ss.424aa and 424a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 425">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 425">review of decision by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 425">whether refugee review tribunal's decision affected by jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 333">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 333">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 333">evidence of similar protection visa claims by other persons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 333">whether "information" within s.424a of the migration act.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 99">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 99">court may have regard to reasons of tribunal in assessing whether section 424a(1) of migration act 1958 (cth) engaged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 99">question of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 99">delegate considered evidence of similar protection visa claims made by other individuals from same region as appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 99">section 424a not engaged as tribunal did not rely on same information as delegate</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 13" id="cs0">However the High Court has also endorsed the position that the Court may draw inferences from the Tribunal's decision record as to whether the Tribunal considered any information to be part of the reason for affirming the delegate's decision. ( SZLFX . See also SZMFZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1890 , SZMPT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 99 , and SZLPO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2009] FCAFC 60 ; (2009) 177 FCR 29 ; (2009) 255 ALR 435. ) </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 802" id="cs1">I should just note that an additional argument put by the applicant before the Court at the hearing, at least inferentially, that relied on what the Tribunal eventually found, may have come up against the temporal difficulty for such an argument identified by the High Court in SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] HCA 26 at [17] as it related to s.424A, and by analogy s.359A. ("Would be" not "what was". ) I note also that Federal Court authority does allow for consideration of the Tribunal's decision record in these circumstances, but only as it may assist in what the Tribunal considers "would be" the reason at some anterior point in time ( SZLPJ v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1721 at [15] to [16], SZMPT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 99 at [14] to [17] and SZMFZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1890 at [36] ). In any event, whatever the situation, this does not assist the applicant. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 512" id="cs2">In the current case the applicant has put nothing but the Tribunal's decision record before the Court. However, I agree with Mr May that the Court is able to have regard to the Tribunal's decision record in this regard. (See the subsequent High Court judgment in Minister for Immigration  Citizenship v SZLFX  Anor [2009] HCA 31 ; (2009) 238 CLR 507 (" SZLFX ") at [26]. ) At least for the purpose of making a determination as to whether there was such "information" that the Tribunal considered would be the reason at some point anterior to the making of its decision. (See in this regard SZMFZ v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1890 at [36] ("... that may be a relevant consideration in drawing inferences as to the proper characterisation of that information" per Siopis J), SZMPT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 99 at [15] per Jacobson J ("...But I do not think it follows from what the High Court said in SZBYR that in making an assessment of whether section 424A(1) was engaged, a court can never have regard to the reasons of the Tribunal. "), see also at [16], SZLPJ v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1721 per Perram J at [15]-[16]. ) </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1198" id="cs3">In SZMFZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1890 , Siopis J observed at [36]:

 It follows that it is the relationship which the information in question has to the content of the Convention claim made by the applicant before the Tribunal that is a significant consideration in determining whether it is information in respect of which s 424A(1) applies. Further, the assessment of whether the information enlivened the obligation on the Tribunal under s 424A(1) is made by reference to the time at which the Tribunal becomes aware of the information. Accordingly, and significantly, in light of the submission made by the first respondent, the assessment is not dependent upon the use that the Tribunal subsequently made of the information, although, in my view, that may be a relevant consideration in drawing inferences as to the proper characterisation of the information (emphasis added).

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 713" id="cs4">Ultimately, in that case I accepted the respondent Minister's argument that regard could be had to the Tribunal's published reasons so long as such a regard was for the purpose of determining what "would be" the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the decision of the delegate at some point anterior in time to the published reasons. Reliance was placed on SZMFZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1890 at [36] per Siopis J, SZMPT per Jacobson J at [14] to [17] (the authority relied on by Mr Reilly in the current case), and SZLPJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1721 per Perram J at [15] --- [16] (see SZBJH at [54] to [56]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 842" id="cs5">It is well established that the question of whether the obligation under s.424A(1) of the Migration Act is enlivened is to be determined in advance and independently of the Tribunal's reasoning on the facts of the particular case, such that the need for " unbundling " of the reasons is correspondingly reduced (see SZBYR at [17] and [22]). Nevertheless it has also been held that in determining whether information is within s.424A(1) , the Court may have regard to the reasons of the Tribunal, not as a starting point but as material relevant to whether an inference should be drawn that the Tribunal considered particular information would be the reason or a part of the reason for affirming the decision under review (see SZMFZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1890 at [36] per Siopis J; SZMPT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another [2009] FCA 99 ; (2009) 107 ALD 121 at [17] --- [18] per Jacobson J; SZLPO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCAFC 51 ; (2009) 255 ALR 407 at [31] and now see Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZLFX [2009] HCA 31 at [26] ). As the Full Court of the Federal Court pointed out in SZKLG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another [2007] FCAFC 198 ; (2007) 164 FCR 578 (at [33]), the obligation under s.424A(1) is only enlivened where the Tribunal forms the opinion that particular information would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 708" id="cs6">In examining whether s.424A is engaged, and in determining what "would be" the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review, SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] HCA 26 at [17] provides direction, in that the question is to be determined in advance of the Tribunal's published reasons. That is, it is to be determined at the time that the "issue" is formulated in the mind of the Tribunal and not with regard only to the decision record. However, it is the case that reference can be had to the decision record, so long as that reference comprehends that it is for the purpose only of drawing inferences in informing what "would be" the reason or part of the reason at some earlier point in time. (See SZMFZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1890 (per Siopsis J) at [36], SZMPT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 99 (per Jacobson J) at [14] to [17], SZLPJ v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1721 (per Perram J) at [15] to [16]. ) </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 573" id="cs7">I understood this to mean that this should be done without reference to the Tribunal's decision record. However, other recent Federal Court authorities allow that it is permissible to look at the Tribunal's published reasons for the purpose of drawing inferences as to the proper characterisation of what "would be" "information" for the purposes of s.424A. That is, regard may be had to the Tribunal's decision record so long as such an examination is done with reference to a point in time prior to the Tribunal having conducted its final consideration, and for the purposes of informing what "would be" the reasons at some anterior point in time. (In this regard, see: SZMFZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1890 (" SZMFZ ") per Siopsis J at [36], SZMPT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 99 (" SZMPT ") per Jacobson J at [14] to [17], and SZLPJ v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1721 (" SZLPJ ") per Perram J at [15] to [16]. ) </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 473" id="cs8">Rather, it is to be determined at the time that the "issue" is formulated in the mind of the Tribunal. In particular, Mr Silva relied on SZBYR at [17]: "...The use of the future conditional tense ("would be") rather than the indicative strongly suggests that the operation of s 424A(1)(a) is to be determined in advance - and independently - of the Tribunal's particular reasoning on the facts of the case ..." This was followed in MZXBQ v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 319 (" MZXBQ ") per Heerey J, a matter in which information relating to a "bond" was referred to by that Tribunal at that hearing, but there was no reference to this issue in a " section 424A letter" sent by the Tribunal. In particular, Mr Silva referred the Court to MZXBQ at [30]: "... Post-SZBYR the correct approach would have been for the Tribunal to consider whether the $20,000 bond information, if true, would be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the decision to refuse the appellant's protection visa application ..." SZMFZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1890 (" SZMFZ ") (per Siopsis J):
At [36]:

 "It follows that it is the relationship which the information in question has to the content of the Convention claim made by the applicant before the Tribunal that is a significant consideration in determining whether it is information in respect of which s 424A(1) applies. Further, the assessment of whether the information enlivened the obligation on the Tribunal under s 424A(1) is made by reference to the time at which the Tribunal becomes aware of the information. Accordingly, and significantly, in light of the submission made by the first respondent, the assessment is not dependent upon the use that the Tribunal subsequently made of the information ..."

At [38]:

 "...Further, I infer from the fact that the Tribunal was able to, and did, ask the appellant questions about this information at the hearing, that it was aware of this information by the commencement of the hearing. " 17. The question of whether the Tribunal considered the information to be a reason for affirming the decision must be a question of fact. As Siopis J observed in SZMFZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1890 at [36] : [T]he assessment of whether the information enlivened the obligation on the Tribunal under s 424A(1) is made by reference to the time at which the Tribunal becomes aware of the information. Accordingly, and significantly, in light of the submission made by the first respondent, the assessment is not dependent upon the use that the Tribunal subsequently made of the information, although, in my view, that may be a relevant consideration in drawing inferences as to the proper characterisation of the information. " </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 504" id="cs9">It is the case that in SZBYR the High Court suggested, having regard to the use in s.424A(1) of the future conditional tense rather than the indicative, that the test in s.424A(1) was to be applied not by looking at the Tribunal's published reasons, but was to be determined in advance and independently of the Tribunal's particular reasons on the facts of the case. Nonetheless, the Federal Court has made it clear that it is permissible to have regard to the Tribunal's reasons, not as the starting point, but in drawing inferences as to the proper characterisation of information and in determining whether at any anterior time it would be material that the Tribunal considered was the reason or a part of the reason for affirming the decision under review. (See, for example, SZMFZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1890 at [36] , SZMPT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 99 at [17] and SZLPJ v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1721 at [15] --- [17]. ) </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 413" id="cs10">Jacobson J pointed out in SZMPT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 99 at [17] that the question of whether the Tribunal considered the information to be a reason for affirming the decision must be a question of fact. His Honour referred with approval to the observations of Siopis J in SZMFZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1890 at [36] as follows: [T] he assessment of whether the information enlivened the obligation on the Tribunal under s 424A(1) is made by reference to the time at which the Tribunal becomes aware of the information. Accordingly, and significantly, in light of the submission made by the first respondent, the assessment is not dependent upon the use that the Tribunal subsequently made of the information, although, in my view, that may be a relevant consideration in drawing inferences as to the proper characterisation of the information. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 425" id="cs11">That information was capable of being characterised as information that may undermine the Applicant's claims. It was information given by the Applicant to the Department orally and was therefore not excluded by s.424A(3)(ba) of the Act ( SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2007] HCA 26 ; (2007) 235 ALR 609 at [17] ; SZLPJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1721 at [15] and [16] per Perram J; SZMFZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1890 at [36] per Siopis J; SZMPT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 99 at [17] - [18] per Jacobson J). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 333" id="cs12">On this basis, in determining whether s.424A(1)(a) was enlivened I have considered what inferences can be drawn from the material available as to the Tribunal's state of mind at the anterior point or points of time as considered in SZLPJ and SZLJF , consistent with SZBYR at [17]. I note in that respect that as Jacobson J observed in SZMPT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 99 at [17] --- [18]: [17] The question of whether the Tribunal considered the information to be a reason for affirming the decision must be a question of fact. As Siopis J observed in SZMFZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1890 at [36] : [T]he assessment of whether the information enlivened the obligation on the Tribunal under s 424A(1) is made by reference to the time at which the Tribunal becomes aware of the information. Accordingly, and significantly, in light of the submission made by the first respondent, the assessment is not dependent upon the use that the Tribunal subsequently made of the information, although, in my view, that may be a relevant consideration in drawing inferences as to the proper characterisation of the information. [18] That is to say, in a proper case, the Court, in making its assessment, may draw inferences from the Tribunal's reasons as to whether the Tribunal considered the information to be a reason for affirming the decision. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 99" id="cs13">The question of whether the Tribunal considered the information to be a reason for affirming the decision must be a question of fact. As Siopis J observed in SZMFZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1890 at [36] :
 [T]he assessment of whether the information enlivened the obligation on the Tribunal under s 424A(1) is made by reference to the time at which the Tribunal becomes aware of the information. Accordingly, and significantly, in light of the submission made by the first respondent, the assessment is not dependent upon the use that the Tribunal subsequently made of the information, although, in my view, that may be a relevant consideration in drawing inferences as to the proper characterisation of the information.
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 36 Protection visas</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91 Order of dealing with visas</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424AA Information and invitation given orally by Tribunal while applicant appearing</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FMCA 617">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FMCA 617">persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FMCA 617">review of review refugee tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FMCA 617">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FMCA 617">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FMCA 617">tribunal did not fail to deal with an issue raised by the applicants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FMCA 617">tribunal not required to identity particular locations in the country of nationality where an applicant might relocate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2009] FMCA 617">whether relocation is reasonably practicable depends on the particular objections to relocation raised by an applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2009] FMCA 617">two separate bases for tribunal decision.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">interpretation of s 424aa of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">whether failure on the part of the refugee review tribunal to comply with s 424aa once it chooses to provide oral particulars of information at a review hearing constitutes jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">the tribunal has a discretion whether or not to invoke the provisions of s 424aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">a decision not to invoke s 424aa or non-compliance with the requirements of that section once invoked does not amount to jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">obiter dicta to the contrary by driver fm in szltc v minister for immigration and citizenship [2008] fmca 384 not followed and disapproved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">whether country information is information within the meaning of s 424aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">country information not information within s 424aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">in the instant case the tribunal complied with s 424aa in any event</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">the tribunal was not obliged to consider the " what if i'm wrong test " (as to which see minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v rajalingam [1999] fca 719 ; (1999) 93 fcr 220)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">for this reason, error in the application of that test would not matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">the tribunal's conclusions in respect of relocation were an independent and additional basis for its decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">szatv v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">the appellant was a ukrainian national who faced persecution in his home region on account of the expression of his political beliefs through journalism</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">whether the principle of internal relocation is consistent with the convention relating to the status of refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">whether the refugee review tribunal erred in holding that it was reasonable for the appellant to relocate elsewhere in ukraine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">whether postulated relocation involves denial of fundamental right to free expression of political beliefs protected by convention.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">well-founded fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">whether a well-founded fear of persecution may be confined to a particular region of a country</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">whether persecution may reasonably be avoided by relocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">whether persecution may reasonably be avoided by living "discreetly"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">relevance of practicability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">relevance of territorial distinctions.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 41">szfdv v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 41">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 41">the appellant was an indian national who faced persecution in his home region on account of his political beliefs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 41">whether the principle of internal relocation is consistent with the convention relating to the status of refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 41">whether the refugee review tribunal erred in holding that it was reasonable for the appellant to relocate elsewhere in india.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 41">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 41">well-founded fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 41">whether a well-founded fear of persecution may be confined to a particular region of a country</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 41">whether persecution may reasonably be avoided by relocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 41">relevance of practicability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 41">relevance of territorial distinctions.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 41">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 41">see szatv v minister for immigration and citizenship .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1660">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1660">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1660">s 424a migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">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="cp5.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 155">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 155">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 155">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 155">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 155" id="cs0">In that respect, I note that, as considered in SZATV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another (2007) 233 CLR 18 ; [2007] HCA 40 , the test for relocation is whether it is reasonable, in the sense of being practicable in the particular circumstances of the particular applicant. The answer to that question depends upon the framework set by the particular objections raised to relocation (see SZMCD Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another (2009) 174 FCR 415 ; [2009] FCAFC 46). In SZMZV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1380 (at [20]), Bennett J indicated that the Tribunal has no obligation to make its own further inquiries about the reasonableness of relocation in circumstances where there were no obvious impediments to relocation other than the objections raised by an applicant, which had to be considered and dealt with by the Tribunal. In this case, the Tribunal considered not only the objections raised by the applicant, but also issues in relation to his wife and the reasonableness of relocation having regard to his personal circumstances, employment history and financial capacity, his wife's situation and country information. No jurisdictional error is established in the Tribunal's consideration of relocation. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 674 Continuous disclosure--listed disclosing entity bound by a disclosure requirement in market listing rules</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 675 Continuous disclosure--other disclosing entities</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l4">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 </title>
<title id="l5">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">szbel v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">protection visa decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant claimed he feared persecution on basis of his conversion to christianity if returned to iran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">delegate of the first respondent refused to grant appellant protection visa because not satisfied of the genuineness of appellant's conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">review by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant invited by tribunal to give evidence relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant gave evidence addressed to the delegate's concern regarding the genuineness of his conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa on the basis that appellant's claims were not credible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether tribunal failed to notify the appellant adequately of the issues to which its reasoning processes were directed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether failure of tribunal to ask the appellant to address issues that it considered might be important amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">discretionary power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">right to be heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">requirement of procedural fairness in initial licence grant process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">distinction between initial grant and renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">evaluation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether evaluation based upon materials supplied by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">need to identify critical issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">third party materials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">opportunity to rebutt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">consistent with admissions by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">improper exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether fettered by rule of policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether evidence of rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">refusal of licence to retail "x" videos</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">revenue raising statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">fit and proper person requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">applicant trading in breach of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether applicant not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1989] HCA 44">courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1989] HCA 44">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1989] HCA 44">prejudgment of credibility of witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1989] HCA 44">personal injuries trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1989] HCA 44">statements critical of evidence of defendant's medical witnesses in previous cases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1989] HCA 44">waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1989] HCA 44">further critical statements in reserved judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1989] HCA 44">reasonable apprehension of bias.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">judge approached in private chambers by court counsellor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">absence of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">counsellor prospective expert witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">views expressed favouring one party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">reasonable apprehension that judge might not bring impartial mind to matter.  family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">status of court counsellor as officer of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">improper private approach by counsellor to judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family law act 1975 (cth), ss.37 , 62a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family law rules o.25, r.5.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2010] AATA 505">compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2010] AATA 505">invalidity benefit under defence forces retirement benefits act 1948 (cth) (1948 act)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2010] AATA 505">whether amendments to the defence force retirement and death benefits authority act 1973 (cth) (1973 act) and to the 1948 act bind the tribunal when deciding an application for a condition which arose in 1971</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2010] AATA 505">tribunal guided not bound by amendments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2010] AATA 505">whether applicant's classification under 1948 act assessed correctly</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2010] AATA 505">degree that the impairments diminished the applicant's capacity to undertake civilian employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2010] AATA 505">the decision under review is varied.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1526">(iv) if the offence is a class 2 general offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1526">that, having regard to the matters mentioned in sub-section (7) and no other matters, such a warrant should be issued;</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] AATA 505" id="cs0">In addition, in that context, the Tribunal notes the obiter comment of Finn J in Shingles v Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority : [8]

 ... where the Parliament amends a provision of an Act (here s 53) but does not expressly amend another which deals with a precursor, but like, provision to that amended (ie s 51) so that the two are no longer harmonious, a court is likely to be slow to assume in the absence of clear contextual justification that there was a legislative intent manifest to impliedly amend that provision or to so change the purpose of the Act through the amendment as to change via contemporary principles of statutory construction the meaning of the unamended provision. [9]

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1526" id="cs1">In consequence, and counsel for the Minister accepted, there was no issue of waiver of bias in this matter: see Vakauta v Kelly [1989] HCA 44 ; (1989) 167 CLR 568 at 572-573; see also Shingles v Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority [2009] FCA 1211.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 51 Functions and powers of Council</title>
<title id="l3">DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS ACT 1948 </title>
<title id="l4">DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS ACT 1948 - SECT 51 Classification in respect of incapacity</title>
<title id="l5">DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS ACT 1948 - SECT 52 Rate or amount of invalidity benefit</title>
<title id="l6">DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS ACT 1948 - SECT 53 Reclassification in respect of incapacity</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>