Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1267">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1267">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1267">whether jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1267">whether grounds of review can be relied upon if abandoned at earlier hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1267">whether applicant can rely upon new evidence at court hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1267">whether error by producing decision on same day of receipt of applicant's response to s.424a request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1267">no error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1267">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="[2007] FCA 871">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 871">application for partner visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 871">appeal from federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 871">whether tribunal breached s 360</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 871">whether tribunal failed to carry out its statutory task</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 871">whether reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 871">whether failure to consider relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 169">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 169">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 169">freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 169">whether primary judge in error state law not picked up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 169">whether primary judge in error no procedural unfairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 169">whether new evidence of possible unexamined data base established error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">forge v australian securities and investments commission  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">chapter iii</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">state supreme courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">acting judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">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="cp5.5">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="cp5.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">whether the appointments as an acting judge were validly made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">whether s 37 of the supreme court act was valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">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="cp5.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">distinctions between permanent judges and acting judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">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="cp5.11">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="cp5.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">relevance of the fact that acting judges are typically retired judges.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">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="cp5.14">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="cp5.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">opposing parties did not submit acquiescence or waiver, if any, prevented objection to validity of appointment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">whether high court should consider effect of acquiescence or waiver.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">vesting in state courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">federal character of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">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="cp5.21">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="cp5.22">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">acting judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">validity of orders made by acting judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.24">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="cp5.25">cited from="[2006] HCA 44">transitional provisions of ch 10 of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.26">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="cp5.27">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="cp6.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">saap  anor v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">decision of refugee review tribunal ("tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">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="cp6.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">evidence was later taken from first appellant's daughter in absence of first appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal affirmed decision under review by relying on information obtained from first appellant's daughter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to give the first appellant particulars in writing of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to invite the first appellant in writing to comment on information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached migration act , s 424a.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">construction of migration act , s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the provisions of pt 7 div 4 have sequential or ambulatory operation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevance of refugee convention in case of ambiguity.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">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="cp6.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">general law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached rules of procedural fairness.  administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.18">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.19">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.20">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether grant of relief should be withheld on discretionary grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.21">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevant factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.22">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s 39b.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.23">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">joinder of party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.24">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal was not named as a party for the relief sought under judiciary act , s 39b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.25">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the tribunal was a necessary party to the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.26">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">"officer or officers of the commonwealth"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.27">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act , s 39b.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 2">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 2">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 2">fresh evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 2">whether evidence would have assisted in demonstrating an error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 2">whether evidence would have produced an opposite result. practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 2">where supplementary submissions received after hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 2">where submissions were not considered by primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 2">whether denial of natural justice. superannuation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 2">determination of retirement benefits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 2">issuing of a benefit classification certificate based on answers to questions put in pre-employment medical examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 2">failure to properly answer questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 2">whether real and substantial connection between retirement condition and pre-employment medical conditions.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 660">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 660">claim for protection visa refused by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 660">application for writs of prohibition and certiorari under s 75(v) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 660">remittal from high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 660">application for writ of certiorari brought out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 660">reasons for delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 660">whether any arguable jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 660">new refugee sur place claim.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 24">1 in paragraph [42] on page 9, substitute for the words, 'in order for an appellate court to receive further evidence, two conditions must be satisfied:', the words, 'in order for this court to receive further evidence, generally speaking (cf : cottrell v wilcox [2002] fcafc 53 ; [2002] fca 232 at [18]</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 24">[21], citing cdj v vaj (1998) 197 clr 172 at 184-186 per gaudron j, 199-201 per mchugh, gummow and callinan jj and 230-238 per kirby j) it will be found that two conditions must be satisfied:'.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[2001] WASC 276">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[2001] WASC 276">rules of the supreme court 1971 (wa) , o 56 r 3administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[2001] WASC 276">prerogative writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[2001] WASC 276">application for a writ of certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[2001] WASC 276">whether minister of local government acted lawfully in suspending local council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[2001] WASC 276">whether the minister for local government is required to afford procedural fairness to the applicant councillors before suspension under part 8 of the local government act 1995 (wa) administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[2001] WASC 276">prerogative writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[2001] WASC 276">application for a writ of prohibition to prohibit inquiry panel established by minister of local government, pursuant to s 8.20 of local government act 1995 (wa) , from proceeding to hear inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[2001] WASC 276">whether conduct of members of inquiry panel gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[2001] WASC 276">turns on own facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">allesch v maunz  family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">family court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">nature of an appeal to the full court of the family court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">discretion to set aside an order made in the absence of a party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">miscarriage of justice where a party suffers effect of an adverse order and that party's absence adequately explained.  family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">family court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">appeals by way of rehearing from discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">appellate court seeking to re-exercise discretion by reference to circumstances as they presently exist</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">parties must be given an opportunity to adduce evidence as to circumstances as they presently exist in such cases.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">discretion to set aside order made in absence of a party.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">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="cp16.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1995] FCA 1137">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1995] FCA 1137">fresh evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1995] FCA 1137">appeal to federal court of australia from the administrative appeals tribunal on a question of law pursuant to s. 44 of the administrative appeals tribunal act (1975)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1995] FCA 1137">whether jurisdiction of the court permits the reception of fresh evidence.   veteran's affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1995] FCA 1137">pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1995] FCA 1137">special rate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1995] FCA 1137">appeal from decision of aat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1995] FCA 1137">whether finding of the aat that there is no entitlement to the special rate is supported by the evidence.   interpretation of statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1995] FCA 1137">s. 24(1) of the veterans' entitlements act (1986)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">cited from="[1995] FCA 1137">whether sub-sections (1)(a), (b) and (c) are to be read cumulatively or disjunctively.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">exempt documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">communications between government and salaried legal advisers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">freedom of information act 1982 (cth), s.42(1).  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">communications between government and salaried legal advisers.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">judge approached in private chambers by court counsellor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">absence of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">counsellor prospective expert witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">views expressed favouring one party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">reasonable apprehension that judge might not bring impartial mind to matter.  family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">status of court counsellor as officer of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">improper private approach by counsellor to judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family law act 1975 (cth), ss.37 , 62a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family law rules o.25, r.5.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">interpreters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">allegation of inadequate interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">power of the court to appoint an expert. administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">administration of highly specific questions by a tribunal member</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">whether unfair</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">whether an indication of predisposition. migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">whether independent evidence used to falsify an answer is "information" within s 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 922">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 922">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 922">allegation of apprehended bias by the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 922">applicant tried to tender the tape recording of hearing before the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 922">federal magistrate refused to admit tape recording into evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 378">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 378">review of decision by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 378">whether refugee review tribunal's decision affected by jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 378">whether the refugee review tribunal complied with s.424a of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 378">whether the refugee review tribunal to have regard to all relevant country information only</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 378">whether the refugee review tribunal acted in a way that is fair and just in accordance with s.422b(3) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 378">whether the refugee review tribunal's findings were "unclear and ambiguous"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 378">whether the refugee review tribunal correctly considered the applicant's risk of harm.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] HCATrans 282" id="cs0">On 6 December 2007, Justice Gordon dismissed the appeal: MZXLD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1912.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 106" id="cs1">24. Although new evidence will not generally be admitted on the hearing of an application for judicial review, evidence of what occurred at a hearing in support of a complaint about the absence of procedural fairness or bias in relation to the hearing, is an exception to the general rule, and may be admitted. (See MZXLD v Minister for Citizenship [2007] FCA 1912 at [10] - [11] ). 25. In my view, the Federal Magistrate erred, in the circumstances of this case, in failing to admit the tape of the hearing as evidence in support of an allegation of apprehended bias.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 142" id="cs2">Furthermore, the additional evidence was clearly directed to the merits of the appellant's application and therefore did not fall within one of the exceptional cases where evidence may be admitted in judicial review proceedings: see MZXLD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1912 at [10] - [11] per Gordon J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 922" id="cs3">Although new evidence will not generally be admitted on the hearing of an application for judicial review, evidence of what occurred at a hearing in support of a complaint about the absence of procedural fairness or bias in relation to the hearing, is an exception to the general rule, and may be admitted. (See MZXLD v Minister for Citizenship [2007] FCA 1912 at [10] - [11] ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 378" id="cs4">Section 424A creates a mandatory obligation when it applies. In the present case, that section did not apply in relation to country information. That being so, there was no duty to give a notice under s 424A and, as a result, there can be no question of the manner of exercise of that duty to which s 422B(3) could have application: see MZXLD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1912 , Gordon J at [26]. 17. Subsection 422B(3) does not advance the applicant's argument under s 424A: if there was a breach of that section, there is a jurisdictional error irrespective of s 422B(3) and if there was no breach of that section because it did not apply at all, then s 422B(3) has no relevance.</sentence>
</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">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 28 Form of judgment on appeal</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 25 Copies of documents</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">stoppage of work because of death of employee on unrelated site</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">claim by union for employees to be paid for period of stoppage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">industrial action in support of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">whether claim reasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">admitted breaches of statutory prohibition on payment for period of industrial action and on claiming payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">penalty agreed to by employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">whether within permissible range</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">appropriate penalty for breach by union. workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">statutory prohibition on making payment to employee for period of industrial action and on claiming such payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">union claim that numerous employees should be paid for single period of industrial action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">employees paid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">whether one breach or multiple breaches of statute. penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">contravention of statutory prohibition on making payment to employee for period of industrial action and on claiming such payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">agreement between applicant and employer on amount of penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">whether within permissible range</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">seriousness of breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">factors to be considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">objects of statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">individual and general deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">totality principle.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 425">workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 425">breadth of relief available for conduct in contravention of part xa of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 425">circumstances in which declaratory relief should be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 425">principles governing the imposition of penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 425">when orders are appropriate and necessary to stop the contravening conduct and/or remedy its effects</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 917">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 917">workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 917">part xa freedom of association</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 917">fixing of penalty following breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 917">compensation to dissenting employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 917">refund of union fees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">civil penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">contravention of s 10 of the petroleum retail marketing sites act 1980 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">parties present joint submissions on the appropriate pecuniary penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">direction under federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) asking whether the court must consider whether the proposed amount is within the permissible range and, if so, impose the "agreed" penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">powers and responsibilities of court faced with joint submission on penalty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">[ database search ] [ name search ] [ recent decisions ] [ noteup ] [ lawcite ] [ help ] n w frozen foods proprietary ltd v australian competition  consumer commission [1996] fca 1134 (20 december 1996)    trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">penalties under s.76 for contraventions of part iv</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">price fixing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">effect of agreement between a.c.c.c. and corporation on joint submissions proposing particular orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">desirability of settlement of such cases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">penalty cases not criminal prosecutions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">matters relevant to penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">object of ensuring compliance with the act by deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">effect of undertaking by corporation of a compliance programme agreed with the commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">difficulties in comparing penalties in other cases with that proposed for the instant case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">importance of the particular market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">significance of identity of corporation to be penalised where it was a member of a group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">significance of whether a corporation has previously contravened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">inappropriateness of diminishing the credit to be given a corporation for co-operation and admission of liability by reference to any costs saving it may achieve thereby</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">reference to u.s. law conceding the u.s. federal trade commission "a special competence in formulating remedies"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">discussion of the question for the court where penalty is the subject of an agreed joint submission.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1382">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1382">penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1382">a single course of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1382">the totality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1382">relevance of previous contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1382">punishment and deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 1382">declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 1382">pecuniary penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 786">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 786">penalty hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 786">unlawful building industrial action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 786">admitted contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 786">considerations on penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 786">agreed penalty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">contraventions of s 43 of the building and construction industry improvement act 2005 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">amount of penalties to be imposed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">nature and extent of unlawful conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">consequences of contravening conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">previous similar unlawful conduct, including prior contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">relevance of previous contravention by another autonomous division of the union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">contraventions had common purpose but distinct in time, place and coercion exerted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">relevance of, and weight to be given to, size and financial position and non-profit-making objective of union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">general and specific deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">totality principle   costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">applicant partially successful in his pleaded case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">respondents filed further amended defence on first day of trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">appropriate costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">applicant entitled to part of his costs to reflect measure of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">respondents to pay applicant's costs thrown away by reason of amendment on party-party basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 265">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 265">application for civil penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 265">breach of applicable provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 265">breaches admitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 265">agreed penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 265">considerations as to penalty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 466">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 466">breach of s 170nc of the workplace relations act by union officials and union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 466">level of penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 466">appropriate penalty where union vicariously liable damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 466">where breach of s 45d of the trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 466">where interference with contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 466">no practical difference as to calculation of damages between s 45d count and tort count in instant circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 466">damages to be measured by loss of net revenue by contractor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1514">slip rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1514">orders incomplete and contained a clerical error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1514">orders republished</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 1514">orders take effect from date of earlier publication.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1382" id="cs0">In A  L Silvestri Pty Limited , Gyles J expressed perhaps a more expansive view as to the potential relevance of other unlawful conduct. Referring to a great many previous decisions, His Honour thus concluded:

 [13] A number of findings involving unlawful behaviour by officials related to the CFMEU have been made in recent years, in addition to the other case involving Lane (eg Construction, Forestry, Mining  Energy Union v Coal  Allied Operations Pty Ltd (No 2) [1999] FCA 1714 , (1999) 94 1R 231; Construction, Forestry, Mining  Energy Union v Hamberger [2003] FCAFC 38 ; (2003) 127 FCR 309 ; Alfred v Walter Construction Group Ltd [2005] FCA 497 ; Martino v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union , Magistrates Court of Victoria (Industrial Division), 10 May 2006; Alfred v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union , District Court of New South Wales, 3 March 2004; Hadgkiss v Blevin [2004] FCA 697; [2004] FCA 917 ; Hadgkiss v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] FCA 524 ; (2007) 162 IR 385 ; Ponzio v B  P Caelli Constructions Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 65 ; (2007) 158 FCR 543 ; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 1730 ; (2007) ATPR 42-140 ; Cruse v Multiplex Ltd [2007] FCA 2015 ; Cruse v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] FMCA 1873 ; and Alfred v Lanscar [2007] FCA 1001 ; (2007) 167 IR 320). Counsel for the CFMEU submits that only building industry cases are relevant, and then only those that involve the relevant divisional branch (the New South Wales Construction and General Divisional Branch), bearing in mind that the Union is an amalgamated federation ( Re Election for Office in the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union ; Ex parte Sutton [2002] FCA 971 ; (2002) 115 IR 345 at [23] ). I agree that the classes of case identified are the most relevant, but I do not agree that the other cases are irrelevant.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 786" id="cs1"/>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1040" id="cs2">In addition to these matters, the applicant relied on various other decisions as indicative of a prior history on the Union's part. In particular, the applicant argued that the Union had a substantial history of engaging in similar conduct because it had been found to have engaged in unlawful coercion on numerous previous occasions contrary to: s 187AB(1)(b) of the pre-reform Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), citing Ponzio v B  P Caelli Constructions Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 65 ; (2007) 158 FCR 543 ; Cruse v Multiplex Ltd [2008] FCAFC 179 ; (2008) 172 FCR 279 and Cahill v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2008] FCA 495 ; s 170NC of the pre-reform Workplace Relations Act , citing Alfred v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (Decision of Hughes J, NSW District Court, 5 March 2004); Alfred v Walter Construction Group Limited [2005] FCA 497 ; A  L Silvestri Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] FCA 1047 ; (2007) 165 IR 94 ; Cruse v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2008] FCA 1267 ; (2008) 175 IR 447 ; and Martino v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (Magistrates Court of Victoria, 10 May 2006); s 298P of the pre-reform Workplace Relations Act , citing Hadgkiss v Blevin [2004] FCA 697 ; and Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Hamberger [2003] FCAFC 38 ; (2003) 125 IR 183 ; and s 298S(2)(b) of the pre-reform Workplace Relations Act , citing Alfred v Lancsar [2007] FCA 1001 ; (2007) 167 IR 320. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 265" id="cs3">At paragraph [21] of exhibit "A2", the applicant referred to decisions of the Federal Court, including the decision of Jessup J in Wells v Locarno Management Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1034 and the decision of Buchanan J in Alfred v Lanscar [2007] FCA 1001 and said: "21. In cases where parties have agreed on proposed penalties, the Court is not bound to impose those penalties but will do so if it is satisfied that the proposed penalties fall within "the permissible range": Hills v Sutton [2007] FCA 2033 at [7] per Tracey J, Wells v Locarno Management Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1034 at [23] per Jessup J, Alfred v Lanscar [2007] FCA 1001 ; [2007] 167 IR 320 at [15] per Buchanan J. In this respect, the "permissible range" of penalties refers to a range "which would be permitted by the Court, that is, a range within which the penalty is neither manifestly inadequate nor manifestly excessive": Wells at [23] per Jessup J. As Jessup J said in Wells : 'The predictability involved in the resolution of penal proceedings in accordance with a pre-trial agreement reached by the parties is something which should, as a matter of public policy, be regarded as beneficial' (ibid).  At paragraph [21] of exhibit "A2", the applicant referred to decisions of the Federal Court, including the decision of Jessup J in Wells v Locarno Management Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1034 and the decision of Buchanan J in Alfred v Lanscar [2007] FCA 1001 and said: "21. In cases where parties have agreed on proposed penalties, the Court is not bound to impose those penalties but will do so if it is satisfied that the proposed penalties fall within "the permissible range": Hills v Sutton [2007] FCA 2033 at [7] per Tracey J, Wells v Locarno Management Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1034 at [23] per Jessup J, Alfred v Lanscar [2007] FCA 1001 ; [2007] 167 IR 320 at [15] per Buchanan J. In this respect, the "permissible range" of penalties refers to a range "which would be permitted by the Court, that is, a range within which the penalty is neither manifestly inadequate nor manifestly excessive": Wells at [23] per Jessup J. As Jessup J said in Wells : 'The predictability involved in the resolution of penal proceedings in accordance with a pre-trial agreement reached by the parties is something which should, as a matter of public policy, be regarded as beneficial' (ibid). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 466" id="cs4">13 A number of findings involving unlawful behaviour by officials related to the CFMEU have been made in recent years, in addition to the other case involving Lane (eg Construction, Forestry, Mining  Energy Union v Coal  Allied Operations Pty Ltd (No 2) [1999] FCA 1714 , (1999) 94 1R 231; Construction, Forestry, Mining  Energy Union v Hamberger [2003] FCAFC 38 ; (2003) 127 FCR 309 ; Alfred v Walter Construction Group Ltd [2005] FCA 497 ; Martino v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Magistrates Court of Victoria (Industrial Division), 10 May 2006; Alfred v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union , District Court of New South Wales, 3 March 2004; Hadgkiss v Blevin [2004] FCA 697 ; [2004] FCA 917 ; Hadgkiss v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] FCA 524 ; (2007) 162 IR 385 ; Ponzio v B  P Caelli Constructions Pty Ltd (2007) 158 FCR 543 ; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 1730 ; (2007) ATPR 42-140 ; Cruse v Multiplex Ltd [2007] FCA 2015 ; Cruse v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] FMCA 1873 ; and Alfred v Lanscar [2007] FCA 1001 ; (2007) 167 IR 320). Counsel for the CFMEU submits that only building industry cases are relevant, and then only those that involve the relevant divisional branch (the New South Wales Construction and General Divisional Branch), bearing in mind that the Union is an amalgamated federation ( Re Election for Office in the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Ex parte Sutton [2002] FCA 971 ; (2002) 115 IR 345 at [23] ). I agree that the classes of case identified are the most relevant, but I do not agree that the other cases are irrelevant. Ultimately, union officials will act in accordance with the policies of the union. An official of one geographic or industry branch will observe the manner in which policies are applied by the federal body in relation to other branches. These various cases illustrate that the federal body has not been effective in ensuring that officials act in accordance with the law. I note that there is no evidence of offending officials (including Lane) suffering any serious disciplinary penalties.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1514" id="cs5">

 BUCHANAN J:

1 In a judgment published on 4 July 2007 ( Alfred v Lanscar [2007] FCA 1001) I provided reasons for making orders which the parties had agreed were appropriate.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 36">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 36">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 36">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 36">appellants claimed fear of persecution by liberation tigers of tamil eelam ("ltte")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 36">claim of fear of persecution of sri lankan on ground of race (tamil)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 36">inadequate police protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 36">refugee review tribunal found appellants could be protected by state authorities and did not have well-founded fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 36">whether leave to raise new ground of appeal should be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 36">persecution by "rogue" state officials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 36">police inaction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 36">sri lankans fearing ltte and extortion by police</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 36">appellants subjected to instances of violence by the ltte</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 36">avenues of protection which are available to the appellants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">decision of minister's delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">protection visa sought on basis that appellant was a practitioner of falun gong</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">where minister's delegate made adverse findings on credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">where minister's delegate failed to put information to the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether failure to have regard to information supplied by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether minister's delegate failed to consider future risk of harm to appellant in circumstances where appellant's claim to be an active proponent of falun gong in australia had been accepted. practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">fresh evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">new grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether expedient in the interests of justice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 212">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 212">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 212">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 212">whether death threats constituted serious harm for the purposes of s 91r of the migration act 1958 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 489">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 489">application for protection visa refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 489">refusal upheld by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 489">application to high court for orders nisi in respect of tribunal's decision remitted to federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 489">application for enlargement of time in which to seek constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 489">applicable principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 489">relevance of prospects of success if enlargement granted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v respondents s152/2003  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">applications for protection visas by de facto husband and wife nationals of ukraine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">well-founded fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">husband claimed to suffer religious persecution as jehovah's witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">refugee review tribunal found that incidents of which husband complained were individual and random incidents and did not amount to persecution, and that the chance that he would suffer persecution in future was remote</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">tribunal rejected claim that state encouraged or condoned persecution of jehovah's witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">whether full court of federal court erred in concluding that tribunal committed jurisdictional error in failing to consider a different claim of whether the husband might suffer future harm from private individuals because of religious belief and whether the government of ukraine was able in a practical sense to stop such harm occurring</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">absence of evidence before tribunal to support a conclusion that ukraine did not provide level of protection required.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">applications for protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">relevance of attitude or capacity of state to whether fear of harm well-founded, to whether there is persecution, to whether a person is outside country of nationality owing to well-founded fear of persecution and to unwillingness of person to seek protection of state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">protection theory and accountability theory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">non-state actor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">harm by non-state actors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">persecution by non-state actors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">state complicity in persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">persecution tolerated or condoned by state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">failure of state protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">unwilling or unable to provide protection.  international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">treaty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.21">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.22">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">refugees convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.23">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">"persecution"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.24">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">different theories of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.25">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">meaning of treaty provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.26">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">proper approach to meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.27">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">primacy of text</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.28">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">approaches of courts in countries of refuge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.29">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">protection theory and accountability theory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.30">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">whether a third theory applicable.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">re minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte epeabaka  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">affirmation by refugee review tribunal of decision to refuse application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">public statements made by tribunal member on personal internet home page about truthfulness of applicants for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">whether pt 7 of migration act 1958 (cth) constitutes a code excluding the common law rules of natural justice and in particular the ostensible bias rule.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">whether a reasonable party or member of the public might apprehend that decision of tribunal member was affected by a prejudiced mind</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">whether ostensible bias may be inferred from statements made after a decision.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">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="cp15.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1994] HCA 30">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1994] HCA 30">jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1994] HCA 30">impartiality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1994] HCA 30">murder trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1994] HCA 30">juror giving flowers to victim's mother</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1994] HCA 30">whether juror or jury to be discharged appropriate test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1994] HCA 30">reasonable apprehension of lack of impartiality or real danger of lack of impartiality.   evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1994] HCA 30">criminal trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1994] HCA 30">accomplice inculpating accused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1994] HCA 30">whether accomplice warning necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1994] HCA 30">nature of warning.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">judge approached in private chambers by court counsellor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">absence of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">counsellor prospective expert witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">views expressed favouring one party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">reasonable apprehension that judge might not bring impartial mind to matter.  family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">status of court counsellor as officer of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">improper private approach by counsellor to judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family law act 1975 (cth), ss.37 , 62a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family law rules o.25, r.5.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">plea of authorship and ownership of copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">general traverse</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">defendant's case that copyright vested in partnership of which author a member</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">no plea of assignment or transmission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">point not made issue by conduct at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">whether maintainable on appeal.  partnership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.12">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">partnership property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.13">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.14">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">acquisition from individual partners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.15">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">partnership act 1958 (vict.), s. 24(1).*   * section 24 of the partnership act 1958 (vict.) provides: "all property and rights and interests in property originally brought into the partnership stock or acquired whether by purchase or otherwise on account of the firm or for the purposes and in the course of the partnership business are called in this act partnership property and must be held and applied by the partners exclusively for the purposes of the partnership and in accordance with the partnership agreement."  copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.16">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">transmission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.17">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">devolution by operation of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.18">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">partnership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.19">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">no express assignment of copyright by individual partners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.20">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">copyright act 1968 (cth), ss. 35 , 196 (1).+  + section 196(1) of the copyright act 1968 (cth) provides: "copyright is personal property and, subject to this section, is transmissible by assignment, by will and by devolution by operation of law."  breach of confidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.21">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">confidential information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.22">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">tax minimization scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.23">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.24">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">know-how</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.25">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">scope of protection.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">cited from="[1969] HCA 10">conciliation and arbitration (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">cited from="[1969] HCA 10">commonwealth conciliation and arbitration commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">cited from="[1969] HCA 10">expression by members of views upon general question of policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">cited from="[1969] HCA 10">further application made in response to views expressed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">cited from="[1969] HCA 10">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">cited from="[1969] HCA 10">prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">cited from="[1969] HCA 10">propriety of comment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">cited from="[1969] HCA 10">whether members who had made comment thereby disqualified from sitting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">cited from="[1969] HCA 10">conciliation and administration act 1904</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.9">cited from="[1969] HCA 10">1968 (cth), s. 34.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 781">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 781">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 781">new grounds of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 781">principles governing leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 781">privative clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 781">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 781">failure to make a finding in relation to a jurisdictional requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 248">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 248">leave to raise new grounds on appeal not raised at first instance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 248">no reasonable prospect of success practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 248">leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 248">issue raised at first instance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 248">forensic choice of legal representatives not to adduce available evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 248">leave refused</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 781" id="cs0">In determining whether it is expedient or in the interests of justice to grant leave to raise a new ground, it is accepted that consideration needs to be given to the merits of the ground proposed to determine whether that ground has a reasonable prospect of success: MZWCL v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 635 at [35] ---[37]; Vishnumolakala v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] FCA 248 at [5] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 248" id="cs1">5 The two new grounds of appeal sought to be raised were not raised at the hearing before his Honour. The principles governing the grant of leave to argue new grounds are reasonably well settled. Leave should only be granted if it is expedient in the interests of justice to do so. In considering whether it is so in the interests of justice, it is necessary to give some consideration to the merits of the ground proposed, to determine whether they have reasonable prospects of success. Authorities in support of these well known propositions have been collected in a decision of my own, MZWCL v MIMIA [2006] FCA 635 at [35] and [36]. There is one matter which I would give particular attention to in considering the question of leave, and that is in some cases it is not only appropriate but necessary to have regard to the relation of what is now being sought to be done in the appeal to what was done at the trial.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 36 Protection visas</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 404">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 404">insolvency and administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 404">deed of company arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 404">application seeking termination of deed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 404">cross-claim seeking declaration of validity of deed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 404">false or misleading information contained in administrator's report to meeting of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 404">deficiency in notice of meeting to creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 404">terms of deed in unsatisfactory form</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 404">whether any proper reason for not making order for termination of deed and winding up of company</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 17">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 17">jurisdiction of federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 17">whether court had jurisdiction over any matter raised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">application for summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">summary dismissal of proceedings against certain respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">application of s 31a of the federal court of australia act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">inapplicability to applications to strike out parts of pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">nature of "reasonable prospect" assessment required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">affidavit of respondents denying relevant knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">affidavit unanswered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">generality of affidavit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">affidavit material insufficient to demonstrate no reasonable prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">motion for summary dismissal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 809">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 809">whether court should direct registrar to issue applications lodged by the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 809">proposed applications frivolous, vexatious and if permitted to issue would constitute an abuse of process of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 809">no direction ordered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 809">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 809" id="cs0">Further, it is doubted that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain a damages claim, for the reasons concerning the Court's limited jurisdiction to entertain such private damages claims as explained in Pickering v Commonwealth [2007] FCA 1253 and Pickering v Centrelink [2008] FCA 561.  In Pickering v Commonwealth [2007] FCA 1253 the Court, in proceeding WAD 226 of 2006 (the 2006 DEWR proceeding), dismissed a separate proceeding in which Mr Pickering sought damages from the respondent (identified in his application as the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations) in the sum of $520,000.00, because the Department "refused to help him get a job in Albany". The Court found it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application (at [9-13]), and that there was no reasonable prospect of the applicant successfully prosecuting his claim for damages (at [14-17]). However the Court said that, if it had found that it had jurisdiction to deal with the application, it would not have dismissed the application on the basis that there was no factual foundation to the claim (at [18-25]). Rather the disputed factual matters would need to be determined by the Court following a trial. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l3">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l4">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l5">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">circumstances in which a later full court can depart from an earlier full court decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">stare decisis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">determining ratio decidendi</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">application of minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v al shamry (2001) 110 fcr 27  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">the application of s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">meaning of 'application', 'information', and 'reason, or part of the reason' in s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1908">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1908">information within s359a of the migration act refers to knowledge of facts or circumstances communicated to or received by the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1908">information submitted by the applicant and received by the tribunal that he was going on 'continuing trips' to jordan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1908">tribunal's inference that relationship with first wife was continuing on basis of the 'continuing trips' was part of its reasoning process and was not itself information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1908">failure to summons a witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1908">whether a breach of s357a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1908">applicant's entitlement to relief depends on proper construction of ss 361 and 363 not on the natural justice hearing rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1908">tribunal must have genuine regard to the applicant's notice requesting that a witness be called</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1908">ss 361 and 363 do not oblige the tribunal to call a witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">proper construction of s 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">where tribunal relied on country information to reject aspects of appellant's story</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">whether reliance transformed country information into information specifically about the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">whether appellant entitled to be told how and why tribunal considered the country information undermined the appellant's credibility.  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">ambit of s 422b of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">proper construction of 'in relation to the matters it deals with'.  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">requirement on tribunal to apply the law to facts rationally found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">whether irrational for tribunal to make adverse credibility findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">where appellant failed to mention serious attacks in statement supporting his application for a protection visa.  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">requirement on tribunal to consider whether it was satisfied that the appellant faced a real chance of persecution for convention reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 1493">whether tribunal only gave consideration to whether the appellant was a credible witness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1388">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1388">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1388">whether finding of jurisdictional fact based on probative evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1388">whether div 4 of pt 7 of migration act exhausts common law natural justice hearing rules, or only some of them</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">appeal from federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">appellant did not respond to invitation to hearing before refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">appellant sent medical certificate three days prior to scheduled hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">tribunal then rescheduled hearing in ten days time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">tribunal informed appellant of rescheduled hearing by pre-paid post</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">appellant did not attend rescheduled hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">appellant did not raise concerns about rescheduled hearing or notice period before federal magistrate or federal court on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">whether tribunal required to provide notice of rescheduled hearing in accordance with s 425a(3) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">whether failure to do so constitutes jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">whether relief should be refused on discretionary grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1595">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1595">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1595">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1595">claimed failure of rrt's duty of enquiry to verify authenticity of foreign official documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1595">no evidentiary basis established for claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1595">claim incapable of succeeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1595">additional claim that rrt's adverse findings not supported by positive evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1595">rrt not required to provide positive evidence to support findings adverse to appellant's claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1595">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1590">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1590">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1590">visa of a kind that could not be granted while applicant in the migration zone</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1590">criterion for grant of visa that applicant be 'employed' for remuneration for a specified period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1590">information received by decision-maker from source other than applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1590">information that work done by applicant was voluntary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1590">whether decision-maker obliged to notify applicant of this information and to give him an opportunity to respond</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1590">whether obligation to afford applicant procedural fairness displaced by statutory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1590">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 1590">whether decision-maker obliged to notify applicant that decision would turn on issue of remuneration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 1590">whether decision-maker misconstrued meaning of remuneration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2004] FMCA 790">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2004] FMCA 790">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2004] FMCA 790">whether tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations and took into account irrelevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2004] FMCA 790">whether tribunal failed to give applicant prescribed notice of invitation to hearing.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 121">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 121">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 121">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 121">application for review by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 121">appellant invited to attend oral hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 121">appellant sought adjournment on basis of illness and pending operation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 121">tribunal request for medical certificate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 121">no medical certificate provided</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 121">hearing proceeded in absence of appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 121">whether contravention of s 425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 121">whether invitation illusory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 121">whether breach of requirement of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 559">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 559">fraud of agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 559">whether actions of agent amounted to fraud on the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 559">whether jurisdictional error   migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 559">s 424a migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 559">whether lack of detail in visa application amounted to adverse information in the form of omissions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 559">whether tribunal failed in its obligation to provide particulars of information considered the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review   migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 559">whether a request for a personal identifier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 559">whether appellant required to provide a personal identifier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1086">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1086">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1086">requirements of notice of invitation to hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1086">"response to hearing invitation" form</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1086">migration agent authorised recipient for the purposes of receiving correspondence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1086">non-appearance before the tribunal on the part of the applicant attributed by the applicant to the alleged dishonesty of migration agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1086">no evidence that migration agent acted dishonestly or fraudulently</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1086">no jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 894">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 894">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 894">protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 894">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 894">application for review of a decision of the rrt affirming a decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 894">applicant a citizen of china claiming fear of persecution as a falun gong practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 894">whether leave should be granted to extend the time for filing an application not made within 28 days of notification.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1561">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1561">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1561">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1561">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1561">application for review of decision of the rrt affirming a decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant the applicants protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1561">applicants are citizens of india claiming fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1561">where applicants did not attend the tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1561">no reviewable error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1496">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1496">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1496">no jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1440">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1440">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1440">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1440">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1440">application for review of decision of refugee review tribunal affirming decision not to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1440">citizen of malaysia claiming fear of persecution for reason of religion and race</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1440">whether tribunal misinterpreted the meaning of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1440">where hearing rescheduled because of the unavailability of an interpreter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1440">where applicant attended rescheduled hearing and gave evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1440">tribunal not required to provide notice of rescheduled hearing in accordance with s.425a(3) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.10">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1440">whether relief should be refused on discretionary grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.11">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1440">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1382">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1382">review of decision by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1382">applicant did not attend hearing before refugee review tribunal after completing 'response to hearing invitation' form</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1382">applicant alleges that the signature on the completed 'response to hearing invitation' form is not his</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1382">whether refugee review tribunal breached s.426a of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1382">applicant made inconsistent claims in his protection visa application and his application for review before the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1382">whether refugee review tribunal breached s.424a(1) of migration act 1958 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1360">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1360">review of decision by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1360">applicant completed 'response to hearing invitation' form informing refugee review tribunal that he did not wish to attend hearing before refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1360">applicant failed to attend hearing before refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1360">whether refugee review tribunal breached s.424a(1) migration act 1958 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2006] AATA 709">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2006] AATA 709">business visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2006] AATA 709">cancellation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2006] AATA 709">whether written notice given in australia or outside australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">citing from="[2006] AATA 709">time allowed in notice for recipient to make representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">citing from="[2006] AATA 709">notice properly given</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 807">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 807">appellant failed to appear before tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 807">tribunal held hearing in appellant's absence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 807">no breach of procedural fairness</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 559" id="cs0">The Minister supported the Federal Magistrate's conclusion (at [19]) that the deficiencies the delegate identified were not the reason for the Tribunal's refusal of the application. The Tribunal simply did not reach the required state of satisfaction. This, the Minister said, is consistent with a long line of authority (for example, SZEFM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 78 at [23] , SZEGX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 166 at [10] , SZCIA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 238 at [9] - [14], and SZBZO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 494 at [4] - [49]. The Minister also submitted that, in any event, the appellant's protection visa application is not information within the meaning of s 424A ( SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 235 ALR 609 ; [2007] HCA 26 at [17] - [18]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1086" id="cs1">(See SZEFM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 78 (" SZEFM ") at [23], SZEGX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 166 (" SZEGX ") at [10], SZCIA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 238 (" SZCIA ") at [9]-[14], SZBZO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 494 (" SZBZO ") at [48]-[49].</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 894" id="cs2">Such reasoning does not engage s.424A of the Migration Act , and I am referred to the decisions, inter alia, of SZEFM v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 78 at [23] , and SZEGX v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 166 at [10] , SZCIA v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 238 at [9] - [14], and SZBZO v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 494.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1561" id="cs3">(See SZEFM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 78 at [23] ; SZEGX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 166 at [10] ; SZCIA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 238 at [9] to [14]; SZBZO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 494 at [48] and [49]).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1496" id="cs4">In those circumstances no failure to comply with s.424A is established, consistent with the approach of the Federal Court in SZCIA v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 238 at [11] --- [13] per Allsop J and also see SZBZO v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 494 at [48] --- [49] per Jacobson J.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1440" id="cs5">4.35D (see SZDQO v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1026 at [29] and [31]; SZBZO v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 494 ; SZEFM v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 78 at [14] ).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1382" id="cs6">( SZEFM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 78 per Bennett J at [23]; SZEGX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 166 per Moore J at [10]; SZCIA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 238 per Allsop J at [9]-[14]; SZBZO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 494 per Jacobson at [48]-[49]).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1360" id="cs7">The authorities referred to by the first respondent in his written submissions support that proposition and it is indeed correct ( SZEFM v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 78 (Bennett J) at [23]; SZEGX v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 166 (Moore J) at [10]; SZCIA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 238 (Allsop J) at [9-14]; SZBZO v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 494 (Jacobson J) at [48-49].</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] AATA 709" id="cs8">All are concerned with aspects of an application and its hearing in the Refugee Review Tribunal. The interpretation of s 422B has led to disagreement among differently constituted Federal Courts as to the extent of s 422B. They were summarised by Jacobson J in SZBZO v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs : [63]

 " 28. Section 422B applies to applications to the Tribunal for review of a decision filed after 4 July 2002; see SZATG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1595 ; (2004) 83 ALD 596 at [31] ; see also SZBDF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1493 (' SZBDF' ) at [11]. It therefore applies to the present case.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 807" id="cs9">14 Further, I note that where the Tribunal decides to reschedule a contemplated hearing at the request of an applicant, s 425A does not apparently apply to the notice of the rescheduled hearing: see SZDQO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1026 and SZBZO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 494. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 422B Exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424C Failure to give information, comments or response in response to written invitation</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425A Notice of invitation to appear</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 426A Failure of applicant to appear before Tribunal</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 441A Methods by which Tribunal gives documents to a person other than the Secretary</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 441C When a person other than the Secretary is taken to have received a document from the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 502 Minister may decide in the national interest that certain persons are to be excluded persons</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
<title id="l11">MIGRATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS) ACT 2002 NO. 60, 2002 </title>
<title id="l12">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </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>