Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">circumstances in which a later full court can depart from an earlier full court decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">stare decisis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">determining ratio decidendi</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">application of minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v al shamry (2001) 110 fcr 27  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">the application of s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">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 1200">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1200">saap v mimia (2005) 215 alr 162 ; mima v al shamry (2001) 110 fcr 24 ; s 424a migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1200">circumstances in which prior statement may be information that is the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">appeal from federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">refugee review tribunal ("the rrt") failed to give appellant particulars in writing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">whether information provided by applicant on protection visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">whether converted to information given by applicant for purpose of application for review by rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">whether exception in s424a(3)(b) of migration act 1958 (cth) enlivened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">whether breach of s424a amounts to jurisdictional error that invalidates decision of rrt practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">joinder of rrt migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">s424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 263">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 263">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">application for protection visa refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">tribunal's understanding of the word 'persecution'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">s 424a of migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">whether information was 'the reason or part of the reason' for affirming the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">meaning of 'information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">identification of the 'reason' for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">an interpretative task</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">discretionary ground to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v rajamanikkam  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">decision of a delegate to the minister for immigration and multicultural affairs refusing the respondent's application for protection visa and refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">delegate's decision affirmed by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">respondent from sri lanka lodged application for refugee status and protection visa on basis of fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">refugee review tribunal rejected the respondent's application concluding the primary claim was concocted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">consideration of the scope of "no evidence" ground of review in s 476(1)(g) and s 476(4) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">whether factors identified by refugee review tribunal going to the credibility of the respondent were based on facts that did not exist</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">whether "no evidence" ground made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">whether particular facts on which the respondent relied did exist</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">whether particular facts that did not exist were critical to the making of the refugee review tribunal's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">relevance of similar provisions in administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth).  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">judicial review of administrative decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">no evidence ground in migration act 1958 (cth), ss 476(1)(g) and (4)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">adverse finding as to credibility of male applicant for refugee status and protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">whether such finding invalidated in law because "based on" the existence of a particular fact, critical to the decision, found on review to be unsupported by evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">importance of distinction between judicial review and merits review of factual conclusions.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 68">mark fleming v the queen  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 68">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 68">trial by judge sitting alone</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 68">failure by judge to include in reasons for judgment a warning required to be given to jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 68">whether failure demonstrates a breach of criminal procedure act 1986 (nsw), s 33(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 68">whether failure amounted to a wrong decision on a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 68">whether, despite failure, no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred.  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 68">appeal under criminal appeal act 1912 (nsw), s 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 68">nature of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 68">relevance of phrase "unsafe and unsatisfactory".  criminal appeal act 1912 (nsw), ss 5 , 6 .  criminal procedure act 1986 (nsw), pt 9 (ss 30</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 68">33 ).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">project blue sky inc  ors v australian broadcasting authority  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">reconciliation of conflicting provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">intention of legislature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">presumption that provisions intended to achieve consistent goals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">leading and subordinate provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">grammatical meaning and legal meaning.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">acts done in breach of a condition regulating a statutory power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">mandatory and directory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.11">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">purpose-based test.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.12">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.13">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.14">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.15">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">standard prescribing australian content requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.16">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether inconsistent with legislative requirement that functions be performed consistently with australia's international obligations.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.17">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.18">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.19">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.20">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">power to make standards that "relate to ... the australian content of programs"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.21">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether restricted to standards conferring preferential treatment.  trade law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.22">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australia new zealand closer economic relations trade agreement.  broadcasting services act 1992 (cth), ss 3 , 122 , 158, 160.  broadcasting services (transitional provisions and consequential amendments) act 1992 (cth), s 21.  tasker v fullwood [1978] 1 nswlr 20 at 23-24 applied.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">re-opening case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">order pronounced but not entered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">nature of review where re-opening allowed.  natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">disciplinary proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">barrister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">professional misconduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">charge of announcing appearance without instructions from solicitor and deliberately misleading court by informing it that instructed by solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.9">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">finding of deliberate lie</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.10">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">failure to give opportunity to be heard on whether finding should be made.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">decision of administrative character made under enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct engaged in for purpose of making decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">review of decisions and conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">ambit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 3 , 5 , 6 .  broadcasting and television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">commercial broadcasting licences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">australian broadcasting tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">power to suspend or revoke licence if satisfied that licensee no longer fit and proper person to hold licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">controller of licensee not fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">whether licensee fit and proper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct before commencement of licence period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">broadcasting act 1942 (cth), s. 88.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.21">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">grounds on which further appellate court will interfere with intermediate court's exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">repatriation pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">incapacity arising out of or attributable to war service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">connexion between physical condition and war service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt that grounds insufficient to grant claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">repatriation act 1920 (cth), ss. 24aa, 47, 101, 107vzzb</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth), ss. 25 , 43 , 44 (1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 489">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 489">review of rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 489">where tribunal accepted that the applicant was a bnp supporter but did not find him to be politically active</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 489">whether tribunal relied on a false dichotomy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 489">whether tribunal failed to take into account evidence of particular witness or made findings not supported by the evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 489">where witness account not corroborative of applicant's claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 489">where applicant submitted a large quantity of extra information after tribunal hearing, some of which was inconsistent with his oral evidence and was relied on by the tribunal to make adverse credibility findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 489">whether these inconsistencies constituted new issues such as to require the tribunal to invite the applicant to a further hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 489">whether tribunal failed to address a claim clearly arising from the applicant's submissions.  migration act 1958 (cth), ss.92r(3), 424a , 425  craig v state of south australia [1995] hca 58 ; (1995) 184 clr 163  minister for aboriginal affairs v peko-wallsend limited [1986] hca 40 ; (1986) 162 clr 24</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1031">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1031">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1031">appeal from federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 1031">whether tribunal failed to comply with statutory obligation to give appellant information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 1031">whether information was within exception to obligation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 1031">whether appellant had given information to the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 835">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 835">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 835">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 835">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 835">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 618">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 618">review of rrt decision − where the applicant gave evidence at the tribunal hearing that he obtained a passport by bribery − where the applicant gave evidence he was not apprehended upon leaving the country as he used a different name than the one known to the alleged persecutors − where the tribunal found the applicant's claims of persecution to be implausible on the basis of its conclusion the applicant could not have left the country if his claims of persecution were true − whether the tribunal complied with s.424a − where the tribunal did not investigate evidence provided by the applicant in response to its questioning or seek elaboration of the points made − whether the tribunal's reasons evidence apprehended bias − whether the tribunal failed to consider the evidence put forward by the applicant − whether the tribunal failed to exercise its inquisitorial function in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 200">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 200">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 200">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 200">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 200">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1838">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1838">application for a subclass 850 visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1838">de facto relationship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1838">application refused by the respondent minister as relationship had "broken down"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1838">tribunal found that the application did not meet the requirements of sub-regulation 1.15a(2)(e)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1838">tribunal's findings were not "harsh or unfair"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1838">findings of fact are for the decision maker "par excellence"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.7">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1838">tribunal's findings were based on evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.8">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1838">tribunal is not required to refer to a piece of evidence if it did not rely on it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.9">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1838">error of law found on one basis does not affect validity of a decision as a whole</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.10">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1838">compelling or compassionate circumstances did not exist</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.11">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1838">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.12">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1838">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.0">citing from="[2006] FCAFC 174">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.1">citing from="[2006] FCAFC 174">operation of articles 1a(2) or 1c(5) of the convention relating to the status of refugees 1951</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.2">citing from="[2006] FCAFC 174">s 424a of the migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.3">citing from="[2006] FCAFC 174">information that should have been subject of the provision of particulars.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1541">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1541">review of decision by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1541">whether refugee review tribunal failed to comply with its obligations under s.424a(1) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1541">whether refugee review tribunal misstated evidence of applicant in finding that applicant's fear of persecution was not well founded.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1435">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1435">review of rrt decision − where applicant gave statement to the department which was different in fact to evidence given at the tribunal hearing − where tribunal found the applicant not to be credible − where tribunal considered claims made at the hearing to have been fabricated because those claims had not been made in statements prior to the hearing − whether the fact the applicant failed to make the claims earlier is 'information' under s.424a − whether the statements can be considered information which the applicant had given to the tribunal thereby falling within the s.424a(3)(b) exception − whether the applicant could be considered to have a well-founded fear of persecution.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 724">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 724">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 724">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 724">whether refugee review tribunal properly took account of evidence before it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.4">citing from="[2006] FCA 724">whether tribunal made proper use of investigative powers where tribunal did not take evidence into account yet did make finding that the evidence was not genuine or otherwise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.5">citing from="[2006] FCA 724">whether appellant could modify the conduct that caused him to fear persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.6">citing from="[2006] FCA 724">whether tribunal properly considered that relocation would protect the appellant from persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.7">citing from="[2006] FCA 724">appeal allowed held: the refugee review tribunal failed to assess the appellant's case in accordance with law, as the tribunal (i) did not give proper reasons for its decision and (ii) did not give proper, genuine and real consideration to the applicant's claims that he had a well-founded fear of being persecuted for a convention reason.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 489" id="cs0">The Tribunal failed to have regard to material evidence and as the Tribunal's own comments show that initial error was not corrected..." The applicant also placed reliance on the views expressed by Rares J in SZEJF v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 724 which was a case involving the Tribunal's finding of implausibility in relation to certain newspaper articles. At [59] his Honour said: "I am of opinion that by the way in which it dismissed the objective evidence provided in the two newspaper articles, the tribunal ignored relevant material (the newspaper articles) and relied on irrelevant material (namely its bare, unsupported assertions that the objective facts demonstrated in the newspaper articles were 'somewhat implausible' and gave 'no evidence' of the Jirga's activities). That was a jurisdictional error: see Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58 ; (1995) 184 CLR 163 at 179; Secretary of State for Education and Science v Thameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1976] UKHL 6 ; [1977] AC 1014 at 1047D-E; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajamanikkam [2002] HCA 32 ; (2002) 210 CLR 222 at 233 [27] , 241 [58], 250 [97] and SZGDB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 431 at [33] - [38] . Here, procedural fairness required the tribunal to give proper genuine and real consideration to the appellant's claim that he had been persecuted by the tribal leaders and the Jirga who had been in Khyber Agency. The tribunal had noted country information on jirgas in Pakistan earlier in its decision immediately before the section headed 'Findings and Reasons'.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] QIC 31" id="cs1">The misconstruction of the letter dated 29 August 2005, which involves ignoring relevant material, is also an error of law: see Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58 ; [1995] HCA 58 ; (1995) 184 CLR 163 at 179; W412/01A v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 432 ; and SZGDB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 431.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1031" id="cs2">12 The appellants arguments commence from and rely upon 'the critical passage' of the Tribunal's reasons set out above. That is supplemented by other briefer passages to similar effect. The appellant submits that the paragraph betokens jurisdictional error as being identical to the impugned reasoning in SZECF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1200 ; (2005) 89 ALD 242 at [26] - [28] - [30] and [34]; SZDKK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1203 at [25] - [25]; SZEEU [2006] FCAFC 2 ; 150 FCR 214 per Weinberg J at [158] and Allsop J at [220]-[221]; SXSB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 319 at [19] ; NBKS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCAFC 174 ; (2006) 156 FCR 205 at [32] - [39] per Weinberg J at [74] per Allsop J; SZGGT V Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 435 at [72] ; SZGDB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 431 at [25]- [26] and SZCNP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1140 at [17] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 835" id="cs3">Mr Wigney referred to SZGDB v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 431 at [25] where Rares J noted conflicting views in the Federal Court about whether VAF provides a rule of general application that lack of detail or specificity in evidence or conclusions reached by the Tribunal, can never amount to information for the purposes of s.424A.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 618" id="cs4">While the tribunal was not bound to accept such a claim, it was obliged to give reasons, not mere assertions, for rejecting it. ...
 [59] I am of opinion that by the way in which it dismissed the objective evidence provided in the two newspaper articles, the tribunal ignored relevant material (the newspaper articles) and relied on irrelevant material (namely its bare, unsupported assertions that the objective facts demonstrated in the newspaper articles were 'somewhat implausible' and gave 'no evidence' of the Jirga's activities). That was a jurisdictional error: see Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58 ; (1995) 184 CLR 163 at 179; Secretary of State for Education and Science v Thameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1976] UKHL 6 ; [1977] AC 1014 at 1047D-E; Minister for Immigration v Rajamanikkam ( [2002] HCA 32 ; 2002) 210 CLR 222 at 233 [27] , 241 [58], 250 [97] and SZGDB v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 431 at [33] - [38]. "
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 200" id="cs5">Equally, the fact that an applicant "said so much and no more on an earlier occasion" can be information within the meaning of s.424A(1): See SZECF v Minister for Immigration [2005] FCA 1200 at [30] ; and SZGDB v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 431 at [25] - [29].</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1838" id="cs6">

 25. The complaint therefore was that there was jurisdictional error given the evidence set out above, and that there was no evidence to suggest otherwise, the Tribunal had made a finding based on "no evidence". This with reference to SZGBD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affair [2006] FCA 431 at [42] was said to amount to jurisdictional error. This complaint is not made out. Simply there was evidence to the contrary, and the Tribunal preferred this evidence over the evidence referred to above.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCAFC 174" id="cs7">

37 In SZGDB v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 431 (delivered on the same date as SZGGT ), Rares J again expressed agreement with Allsop J. His Honour accepted that "information" in the context of s 424A could include what the appellant himself failed to mention, as well as what he positively asserted. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1541" id="cs8">However, the Applicant's solicitor further referred to SZGDB v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 431 (" SZGDB "), where Rares J observed that a finding based on a misstatement of the Applicant's evidence may be capable of amounting to jurisdictional error.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1435" id="cs9">"

The views expressed by Allsop J were considered and followed by Rares J in SZGDB v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 431.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 724" id="cs10">59 I am of opinion that by the way in which it dismissed the objective evidence provided in the two newspaper articles, the tribunal ignored relevant material (the newspaper articles) and relied on irrelevant material (namely its bare, unsupported assertions that the objective facts demonstrated in the newspaper articles were 'somewhat implausible' and gave 'no evidence' of the Jirga's activities). That was a jurisdictional error: see Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58 ; (1995) 184 CLR 163 at 179; Secretary of State for Education and Science v Thameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1976] UKHL 6 ; [1977] AC 1014 at 1047D-E; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajamanikkam [2002] HCA 32 ; (2002) 210 CLR 222 at 233 [27] , 241 [58], 250 [97] and SZGDB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 431 at [33] - [38].</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 75 When eligible non-citizen in immigration detention granted visa</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 414 Refugee Review Tribunal must review decisions</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 502">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 502">where new grounds raised on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 502">whether it is appropriate to treat the federal court as a court at first instance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 502">whether grounds raised have any merit. migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 502">whether tribunal considered particular social group claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 502">where tribunal found no serious harm inflicted on the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 502">where tribunal made a finding on relocation adverse to the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 502">appeal dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 36">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 36">whether reliance on an external source "information" for s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 36">whether information "about the applicant or another person" for s 424a(3)(a).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 1">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 1">notice of invitation to appear issued by tribunal under s 425a of the migration act 1958 (cth) communicated effect of s 426(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 1">information forming part of tribunal's reason to affirm delegate's decision given to the appellant pursuant to s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 1">failure to contact appellant after non-attendance at hearing did not subvert invite issued under s 425.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1962">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1962">section 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1962">country information excepted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1962">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1962">whether denied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1962">whether duty on tribunal to conduct its own enquiries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1962">whether tribunal must mention all of the applicant's claims.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1747">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1747">appeal from decision of federal magistrate reviewing decision of the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1747">where federal magistrate failed to make findings with respect to a ground of application, namely whether tribunal erred in finding that the appellant could safely relocate within pakistan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1747">whether miscarriage of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1747">whether appeal should be allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1747">prospects of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1747">whether tribunal actually required to consider whether relocation an option</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1747">whether ground of appeal "plainly arguable"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1667">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1667">tribunal correctly applied the relocation principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1667">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">szatv v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">the appellant was a ukrainian national who faced persecution in his home region on account of the expression of his political beliefs through journalism</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">whether the principle of internal relocation is consistent with the convention relating to the status of refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">whether the refugee review tribunal erred in holding that it was reasonable for the appellant to relocate elsewhere in ukraine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">whether postulated relocation involves denial of fundamental right to free expression of political beliefs protected by convention.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">well-founded fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">whether a well-founded fear of persecution may be confined to a particular region of a country</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">whether persecution may reasonably be avoided by relocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">whether persecution may reasonably be avoided by living "discreetly"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">relevance of practicability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 40">relevance of territorial distinctions.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1347">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1347">appeal from decision of federal magistrate dismissing application for review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1347">challenge to tribunal's findings regarding relocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1347">whether tribunal erred in failing to have regard to documents on internal protection produced by united nations high commissioner for refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1347">whether tribunal erred in finding it was reasonable for the appellant to relocate within colombia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1389">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1389">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1389">appeal from federal magistrates court of australia which dismissed appellant's application for review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1389">whether tribunal failed to have regard to a relevant consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1389">tribunal had invited appellant to comment on certain matters pursuant to s 424a of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1389">letter conveyed member's concern as to whether the appellant, a bangladeshi muslim, had married a hindu woman as he claimed, and whether mixed marriages in bangladesh led to persecution as he claimed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1389">appellant responded by supplying, relevantly, five letters, three from university academics, one from general secretary of a bangladeshi association in australia, and one from the editor of a bengali newspaper in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1389">whether tribunal had failed to have regard to the letters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1389">failure to mention them or their contents specifically. practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1389">appeal from federal magistrates court of australia which dismissed appellant's application for review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1389">application for leave to raise new ground of appeal not reflected in grounds on which application had been made to federal magistrates court for review of tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 1389">principles governing application for leave to raise new ground of appeal, where no associated application for leave to lead further evidence on the appeal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">tribunal had regard to information from lonely planet guide in rejecting aspect of appellant's claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">whether failure to provide appellant with opportunity to comment upon information constituted breach of s 424a of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">whether information "the reason, or a part of the reason" for affirming decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">point raised on appeal having previously been abandoned at first instance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">whether leave to rely upon proposed ground should be granted words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">"the reason, or a part of the reason"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">s 424a(1) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">muin v refugee review tribunal  lie v refugee review tribunal  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">alleged failure to have regard to relevant documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">alleged failure to provide reasonable opportunity to respond to adverse material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">jurisdictional error for denial of procedural fairness and natural justice.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">decision by minister to refuse application for visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">review of decision by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">obligation of secretary of department of immigration and multicultural affairs to give relevant documents to registrar of tribunal for purpose of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">nature and extent of obligation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">migration act 1958 (cth), ss 418(3) , 424 (1).  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">review of administrative decision by officers of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.17">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">refusal to grant protection visa to claimant for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.18">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">requirement of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.19">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">alleged failure to have regard to relevant documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.20">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">alleged failure to provide reasonable opportunity to respond to adverse materials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.21">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.22">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">availability of constitutional relief under s 75(v) and other relief for denial of procedural fairness and natural justice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">application for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">internal protection principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">well-founded fear of persecution not extending to whole country</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">relocation in country of nationality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">reasonableness of relocation alternative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">nature of inquiry decision-maker required to undertake.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.21">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">grounds on which further appellate court will interfere with intermediate court's exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 430 Refugee Review Tribunal to record its decisions etc.</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 476 Jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 125">customs and excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 125">diesel fuel rebate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 125">whether fuel used at residential premises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 125">at hospitals, nursing homes and aged person homes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 125">public utility under general statutory obligation to provide electricity to customers in north queensland</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 125">provision of electricity to island communities in the torres strait</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 125">whether purchase of fuel "for use" by public utility provider "at" residential and other premises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 125">whether the criteria in s 78a(1) (b), (c) and (d) of the excise act 1901 satisfied by the undisputed facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 125">whether a question of law sufficiently formulated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 125">appeal against setting aside tribunal decision dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">purchase of business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">"assumption" by purchaser of liability of vendor for or on account of annual leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether employees to be "taken over" by purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether derivation by purchaser of income in the sum of that liability in circumstances of the case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether gain constituted income according to ordinary concepts or whether amount had been received by way of insurance or indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">income tax assessment act 1936 , ss. 25, 26 (j).  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether appeal to the federal court from the administrative appeals tribunal an appeal on "question of law"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">administrative appeals tribunal act 1977, s. 44.  federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">"matter" within meaning of chapter iii of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether s. 44 of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1977 confers jurisdiction with respect to a "matter"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">the content of that matter.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 413">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 413">summary dismissal under s 31a(2) of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 413">no reasonable prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 413">no reviewable decision under administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth) and health and other services (compensation) act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 413">refusal by the administrative appeals tribunal to grant an extension of time under s 27(7) of the aat act was correct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 10">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 10">appeal from decision of the administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 10">where decision of the aat affirmed the military rehabilitation and compensation commission's decision not to grant compensation/benefits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 10">where notice of appeal contains no pure questions of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 10">application of part x of the safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 10">whether the compensation (commonwealth government employees) act 1971 (cth) applies to injuries/diseases suffered after 1 december 1988</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 10">whether s 39 of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth) imposes a duty on the tribunal to accord procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 10">whether procedural fairness was afforded to the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 10">no denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 10">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1485">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1485">appeal from a decision of the australian fisheries management authority to grant certain statutory fishing rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1485">granting certain statutory fishing rights pursuant to s 26 of the western tuna billfish fishery management plan 2005</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1485">whether notice of appeal contained pure questions of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1485">whether the court may frame its own questions of law based on notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1485">whether reasons given by the statutory fishing rights allocation review panel (sfrarp) were adequate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1485">whether the sfrarp complied with its statutory obligation to give reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1485">whether a failure to give reasons for an administrative decision vitiates the making of that decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1485">whether a failure to give reasons for an administrative decision can constitute an error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1272">defence and war</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1272">war</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1272">caused disease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1272">statement of principles for depressive disorder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1272">experiencing a severe psychosocial stressor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1272">veteran experiencing severe seasickness on operational service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1272">whether related to service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1272">disposition to seasickness preceded operational service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1272">whether fatal to claim that seasickness related to service.    appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 1272">appeal on question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 1272">notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 1272">whether questions therein stated with precision pure questions of law.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1610">veterans' entitlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1610">pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1610">death of veteran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1610">operational service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1610">two flights outside the australian territorial zone</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1610">whether full-time continuous service outside australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1610">essential character of veteran's service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1535">defence and war</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1535">veterans' entitlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1535">disability pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1535">whether appeal raised a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1535">post-traumatic stress disorder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1535">question whether veteran experienced a severe traumatic event</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1535">osteoarthrosis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1535">whether disease war-caused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1535">statements of principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1535">whether administrative appeals tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 441">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 441">notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 441">whether question identified in notice was a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 441">application for leave to amend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 441">amendment would require significant departure from agreed basis of dispute in the administrative appeals tribunal  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 441">deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 441">dominant purpose of scheme to obtain tax benefit</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 413" id="cs0">Thirdly, the CEO raised the question whether this appeal in fact raised any appeal on a question of law. There are many cases where the scope of s 44(1) of the AAT Act has been considered, including recently Australian Telecommunications Corporation v Lambroglou (1990) 12 AAR 515 at 524; Birdseye v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2003) 76 ALD 321 at 324-325; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Saxby Bridge Financial Planning Pty Ltd (2003) 133 FCR 290 at 300-302; Comcare v Etheridge [2006] FCAFC 27 ; (2006) 149 FCR 522 at 526-527; Commissioner of Taxation v Dixon [2006] FCA 1250 ; (2006) 155 FCR 101 at 104-106; Hussain v Minister for Foreign Affairs [2008] FCAFC 128 ; (2008) 248 ALR 456 at 465-468. Section 44(1) of the AAT Act is not enlivened by inquisitorial questions, such as "Did the Tribunal err in law ..." or by assertions as to an error of law expressed in only several terms. Of course, allowance must be paid for the difficulty confronting litigants in person in endeavouring to clearly identify and express an asserted error on a question of law, but merely asserting such an error because a putative appellant disagrees with the outcome or by saying the outcome involves such an error is not enough. Those comments may apply directly to the present notice of appeal. However, the appeal has been dismissed simply because there was no reviewable decision before the Tribunal even if an extension of time were granted, and because in any event the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion to refuse an extension of time did not miscarry and was not a consequence of any error of law on its part. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 10" id="cs1"/>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1485" id="cs2">Section 161 of the Act, like s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ("the AAT Act"), allows an appeal to this Court only on a question of law. The existence of a question of law is not merely a qualifying condition to ground an appeal under s 44, but is also the subject matter of the appeal itself: see TNT Skypak International (Aust) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 82 ALR 175 at 178 per Gummow J. The Court has repeatedly emphasised the need for pure questions of law to be identified and for them to appear in the notice of appeal in order for the Court to be able to entertain an appeal: see, for example, Australian Telecommunications Corporation v Lambroglou (1990) 12 AAR 515 at 524; Birdseye at 324-325; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Saxby Bridge Financial Planning Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 244 ; (2003) 133 FCR 290 at 300-302; Comcare v Etheridge [2006] FCAFC 27 ; (2006) 149 FCR 522 at 526-527; Commissioner of Taxation v Dixon [2006] FCA 1250 ; (2006) 155 FCR 101 at 104-106; Hussain v Minister for Foreign Affairs [2008] FCAFC 128 ; (2008) 169 FCR 241 at 253-7. In Birdseye , Branson and Stone JJ held (at 325) that:
"... O 53 r 3(2) discloses an intention that a question of law to be raised on an appeal from the tribunal should be stated with precision as a pure question of law . It is in the specification of the grounds relied upon in support of the orders sought that, in our view, one should expect to find the links between the question of law, the circumstances of the particular case and the orders sought on the appeal" (emphasis added). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1272" id="cs3">That is directed to the Tribunal's fact finding. Question (e) asks whether the Tribunal failed to take into account unidentified "relevant matters". In Commissioner of Taxation v Dixon [2006] FCA 1250 ; (2006) 155 FCR 101 at [19] a question whether the Tribunal failed to take into account one or more relevant considerations was held not to state a question of law on the grounds that it was insufficiently particular, begs the question as indicated in Lambroglou 12 AAR 515 , and refers to a conclusion the court may or may not reach, which needs to be based on a specifically stated question of law. Question (f) asks whether it was "open to" the Tribunal to make a finding. Question (g) asks whether the Tribunal "correctly applied" the definition of disease or injury in s 5D of the Act.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1610" id="cs4">19 It is, therefore, essential, in appeals brought under s 44 of the AAT Act , that a question or questions of law be identified. If the notice of appeal fails to disclose a question of law the necessary subject matter of the appeal is lacking. The Court has repeatedly emphasised the need for pure questions of law to be identified and for them to appear in the notice of appeal in order for the Court to be able to entertain an appeal: see, for example, Australian Telecommunications Corporation v Lambroglou (1990) 12 AAR 515 at 524; Birdseye v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2003) 76 ALD 321 at 324-325; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Saxby Bridge Financial Planning Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 244 ; (2003) 133 FCR 290 at 300-302; Comcare v Etheridge [2006] FCAFC 27 ; (2006) 149 FCR 522 at 526-527; Commissioner of Taxation v Dixon [2006] FCA 1250 ; (2006) 155 FCR 101 at 104-106; Hussain v Minister for Foreign Affairs [2008] FCAFC 128 ; (2008) 248 ALR 456 at 465-468. In Birdseye Branson and Stone JJ held (at 325) that:
 "... O 53 r 3(2) discloses an intention that a question of law to be raised on an appeal from the tribunal should be stated with precision as a pure question of law. It is in the specification of the grounds relied upon in support of the orders sought that, in our view, one should expect to find the links between the question of law, the circumstances of the particular case and the orders sought on the appeal. " (Emphasis added. ) </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1535" id="cs5">12 It is, therefore, essential, in appeals brought under s 44 of the AAT Act , that a question or questions of law be identified. If the notice of appeal fails to disclose a question of law the necessary subject matter of the appeal is lacking. The Court has repeatedly emphasised the need for pure questions of law to be identified and for them to appear in the notice of appeal in order for the Court to be able to entertain an appeal: see, for example Australian Telecommunications Corporation v Lambroglou (1990) 12 AAR 515 at 524; Birdseye v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2003) 76 ALD 321 at 324-325; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Saxby Bridge Financial Planning Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 244 ; (2003) 133 FCR 290 at 300-302; Comcare v Etheridge [2006] FCAFC 27 ; (2006) 149 FCR 522 at 526-527; Commissioner of Taxation v Dixon [2006] FCA 1250 ; (2006) 155 FCR 101 at 104-106; Hussain v Minister for Foreign Affairs [2008] FCAFC 128 ; (2008) 248 ALR 456 at 465-468. In Birdseye Branson and Stone JJ held (at 325) that:
 "...O 53 r 3(2) discloses an intention that a question of law to be raised on an appeal from the tribunal should be stated with precision as a pure question of law. It is in the specification of the grounds relied upon in support of the orders sought that, in our view, one should expect to find the links between the question of law, the circumstances of the particular case and the orders sought on the appeal. " (Emphasis added). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 441" id="cs6">6 Accordingly, the relevant question of law is to be the subject matter of the appeal itself. The whole of the decision of the Tribunal is not open to review except to the extent that it is relevant to the questions of law raised (Gummow J in TNT Skypak International (Aust) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) [1988] FCA 119 ; (1988) 19 ATR 1067 at 1071-1072; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Saxby Bridge Financial Planning Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 244 ; (2003) 133 FCR 290 at [46] ; Commissioner of Taxation v Dixon [2006] FCA 1250 ; (2006) 155 FCR 101). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 15 Resignation</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 No. 91 of 1975 - SECT 18 Application of Judges' Pensions Act.</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[1990] FCA 372">designs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[1990] FCA 372">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[1990] FCA 372">reproduction or obvious imitation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[1990] FCA 372">no claim of fraudulent imitation.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[1990] FCA 372">s. 52</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[1990] FCA 372">whether unjustified threats of design infringement made against customer of the respondents was conduct "in trade or commerce".  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[1990] FCA 372">s. 52</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[1990] FCA 372">s. 82</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[1990] FCA 372">whether loss of custom suffered by the respondents after making of unjustified threats by applicant against customer of respondents was suffered "by" conduct of the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[1990] FCA 372">whether necessary causal connection established.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 32">companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 32">indoor management rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 32">forged instrument</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 32">mortgage of company's property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 32">seal not affixed in accordance with articles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 32">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 32">mortgage for benefit of director</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 32">whether mortgagee put on inquiry.  real property (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 32">torrens system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 32">compensation for loss sustained by registration of another person as proprietor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 32">mortgage of company's property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 32">seal not affixed in accordance with articles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 32">registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 32">whether loss sustained by registration or execution of mortgage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 32">registrar-general entitled to assume that common seal affixed and attested with company's authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[1990] HCA 32">whether defence to claim for compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[1990] HCA 32">real property act 1900 (n.s.w.), ss. 106 , 127 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 20">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 20">assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 20">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 20">personal injuries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 20">pain and suffering</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 20">future or potential events</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 20">likelihood of occurrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 20">relevance to measure of damages.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 114">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 114">exclusive distribution certificate issued by overseas manufacturer to australian importer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 114">whether consideration provided by importer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 114">whether importer promised to place orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 114">whether certificate constituted contract. tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 114">inducement to breach of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 114">whether contract existed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 114">respondent's knowledge of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 114">intention of respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">citing from="[2007] FCA 114">"reckless indifference"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">citing from="[2007] FCA 114">whether inconsistent dealing amounted to inducement to breach.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 633" id="cs0">How the Court should treat this lack of evidence may be said not to be settled: compare Axe Australasia Pty Ltd v Australume Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 668 ; (2006) 69 IPR 45 at [35] (acknowledging that relevant evidence could have been but was not provided by the Applicant, but nevertheless applying a 35% discount as a best guess); Norm Engineering [2007] FCA 761 ; 162 FCR 1 , [292]-[296] (applying a 50% discount even where there was evidence that both parties operated in a similar market and that the Respondent was actively attempting to divert sales from the Applicant as market leader); and Innovative [2008] FCA 74 ; 166 FCR 358 at [28] (effectively applying a discount of 100% by refusing to award any lost profits damages on the grounds that to do so would require excessive speculation).  Under similar circumstances in Norm Engineering [2007] FCA 761 ; 162 FCR 1 , the Court adopted the "lost profits" method for calculating damages (at [266]-[271]); namely, (1) examine the number of sales made by the Respondent; (2) assume that the Respondent was trying to capture sales from the Applicant, the market leader; (3) assume that the number of sales made by the Respondent is equal to the number of sales lost by the Applicant; (4) discount the number in (3) to reflect the fact that not all sales made by the Respondent can be considered sales lost by the Applicant; and (5) apply any further discount necessary in the circumstances of the case: see also Axe Australasia Pty Ltd v Australume Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 668 ; (2006) 69 IPR 45 (employing a similar approach). In Norm Engineering [2007] FCA 761 ; 162 FCR 1 , the evidence disclosed, inter alia, that the Applicant was the recognised leader in the same market from whom the Respondent was actively seeking to divert sales and expert evidence was adduced calculating the sales lost by the Applicant. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 114" id="cs1">154 Ms Gatford submitted that the respondent was unable to "adduce precise evidence of what it has lost because it has been out of the market". She added that, therefore, "a level of guesswork is essential". She relied upon Placer (Granny Smith) Pty Ltd v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 5 ; (2003) 196 ALR 257 , 266 (per Hayne J):

 It may be that, in at least some cases, it is necessary or desirable to distinguish between a case where a plaintiff cannot adduce precise evidence of what has been lost and a case where, although apparently able to do so, the plaintiff has not adduced such evidence. In the former kind of case it may be that estimation, if not guesswork, may be necessary in assessing the damages to be allowed. References to mere difficulty in estimating damages not relieving a court from the responsibility of estimating them as best it can may find their most apt application in cases of the former rather than the latter kind.

Ms Gatford submitted that the present case fell within Hayne J's former category. She referred also to the judgments of Wilcox J in Amalgamated Mining Services Pty Ltd v Warman International Ltd [1992] FCA 542 ; (1992) 24 IPR 461 , 478 and of Finkelstein J in Axe Australasia Pty Ltd v Australume Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 668 ; (2006) 69 IPR 45 , 52.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">DESIGNS ACT 2003 </title>
<title id="l1">DESIGNS ACT 2003 - SECT 156 Infringement under old Act</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 106">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 106">validity of warrants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 106">warrants for purpose of australian crime commission special investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 106">whether power to issue and execute warrants limited</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 106">whether for use in criminal prosecution process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 41">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 41">appeal from magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 41">whether the pressure on homosexual to marry amounts to persecution for a convention reason</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 41">whether refugee review tribunal failed to consider essential element of claimpractice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 41">judgments of single judges of federal court not binding on federal magistrates where not exercising appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 41">stare decisis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 41">judicial comity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">whether board of australian crime commission had power to amend an authorisation and determination for a special investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">whether a new determination required under s 7c  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">acts interpretation act 190,1 s 33(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">meaning of "instrument"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">whether application limited to instruments of a legislative character</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">whether contrary intention precluded reliance on s 33(3)  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">australian crime commission act 2002 (cth), s 30(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">whether abrogated privilege against self-incrimination in relation to foreign offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1063">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1063">administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1063">liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1063">insolvent transactions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1063">voidable transactions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1063">unfair preferences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1063">where plaintiffs sought orders that the commissioner of taxation repay monies said to be paid within six months of the relation back day</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1063">onus and burden of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1063">whether requirement that court be 'satisfied' that transactions were voidable prevented parties consenting to orders. practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 1063">precedent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 1063">comity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 1063">whether previous decision of single judge should be followed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 1063">whether previous decision 'clearly or plainly wrong'.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">collision between motor vehicles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">no direct evidence of negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">matter of inference from proved facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">sufficiency of facts to support inference.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">direction to jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">inference of negligence open on proved circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">whether inference should be drawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">defendant able to explain facts from which inference sought to be drawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">failure of defendant to give evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">what reliance to be placed by jury on such failure in deciding whether or not to draw inference</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">nature of direction to jury.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">non-suit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">verdict by direction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">history</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">application in new south wales.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">challenge to authorisation and determination made by resolution of board of first respondent under australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">instrument authorised investigation and determined it to be special investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether determination invalid because board's resolution was not a determination in writing that the investigation was a special investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether determination invalid because chair of board did not convene or attend meeting at which determination made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether determination invalid because of various deficiencies in resolution of the board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether determination invalid because board did not set out the reasons for decision including findings on material questions of fact and refer to evidence or other material on which those findings were based</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether determination invalid because purposes stated in determination exceed scope of investigation under act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether determination invalid because board did not actually draw conclusion as to whether ordinary police methods of investigation were likely to be effective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether determination invalid because board did not resolve class or classes of persons who were to be able to participate in investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether determination invalid because board did not identify the circumstances, or allegations, constituting the federally relevant criminal activity held: application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">all grounds of challenge to determination fail  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">challenge to a summons issued by second respondent under australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether summons invalid because determinations upon which they are based are invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether summons invalid because copy of determination did not accompany summons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether summons invalid because it did not require applicant to give evidence as "witness"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether summons invalid because it was not accompanied by written statement of rights and obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether second respondent could not have been satisfied that it was reasonable in all circumstances to issue summons held: application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">all grounds of challenge to summons fail</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">application to exclude admissions made by accused on the basis of oppressive police conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">proper construction of s 84 evidence act 2005.criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">application to exclude from trial items removed during execution of a search warrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">suggested breaches of ss 3k(3)(a) and (b) of crimes act 1914 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">failure to notify the occupier of the premises from which items have been removed of the place and time at which the subsequent examination will be carried out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">failure to allow the occupier or his representative to be present during the subsequent examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">proper construction of section.criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">breaches of ss 3k(3b) and (3c)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">failure to make application for extension of time in the name of the executing officer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">failure by executing officer to give notice of the extension application to the occupier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">failure to give adequate notice to occupier's solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">proper construction of ss 3k(3b) and (3c) of crimes act 1914 (cth).criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">alleged failure to give a copy of search warrant to a person in the position of alternate occupier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">the requirements of s 3h of the crimes act 1914 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">proper construction of section.criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">alleged breach of 3p of crimes act 1914 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">failure to allow occupier or alternate occupier to be present during the search</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.18">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">proper construction of section in circumstances where occupier has been arrested, detained and taken away from the premises.criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.19">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">proper construction of s 23g of the crimes act 1914 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.20">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">failure to allow an arrested person to communicate with friend, relative and legal practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.21">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">whether alleged failure capable of amounting to oppressive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.22">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">whether any breaches of the accused's rights under the crimes act 1914 (cth) had any bearing on his making the statement sought to be excluded.criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.23">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">applicability of ss 135 and 137 and 90 of evidence act 1995</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.24">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">whether statements should be excluded as being unfairly prejudicial or unfair to the accused. criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.25">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">s 138 evidence act 1995</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.26">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1467">ambit of discretionary considerations and matters relevant to decision as to whether evidence should be excluded where breach has been established.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 183">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 183">anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 183">where previous litigation in relation to lawfulness of the seizure and copying of a hard drive pursuant to a warrant issued under s 3e of the crimes act 1914 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 183">where present application concerns right to obtain a copy of seized material pursuant to s 3n of the crimes act 1914 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 183">whether unreasonable not to have pursued present claim in the previous proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 183">whether claim could have been raised in previous proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 183">whether present application arises out of substantially the same facts as previous application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 183">whether risk of inconsistent judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 183">whether special circumstances justifying decision not to stay present proceeding practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 183">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 183">leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 183">section 24(1a) federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 183">whether judgment dismissing or staying proceeding on ground of anshun estoppel interlocutory or final</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2006] WASC 247">equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2006] WASC 247">particular lien</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2006] WASC 247">solicitor's client obtaining judgment in arbitration proceedings and obtains costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2006] WASC 247">solicitor suspended after judgment paid to client</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2006] WASC 247">liquidator appointed to wind up client</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2006] WASC 247">liquidator arranges for taxing of solicitor's costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2006] WASC 247">whether entitlement to lien affected by lack of formal costs agreement or suspension of solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2006] WASC 247">basis and extent of liquidator recouping reasonable costs of enforcing the costs order</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 803" id="cs0">Accordingly, because Undershaft dealt with the interpretation of Commonwealth legislation, Lindgren J considered that, by reason of this factor, he should follow the decision of Edmunds J in Virgin Holdings unless he thought it to be clearly wrong or plainly wrong: at [86]. However, his Honour noted that this did not relieve him of the necessity to embark upon a full consideration of the parties' submissions with a view to arriving at his own conclusion: see at [88]. See also Egglishaw v Australian Crime Commission (2006) 230 ALR 254 ; [2006] FCA 819 at [15] , per Sundberg J and the cases there cited. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] NSWSC 1467" id="cs1">I am not satisfied that that onus has been discharged. There is a degree of difference between the situation arising where an application is made under s 138 of the New South Wales Evidence Act to exclude evidence on the basis of impropriety or illegality, and the situation arising in a judicial review application or other proceedings of an administrative nature. Even in the latter situation, an onus still falls on the applicant in a situation where a valid search warrant is in existence ( Egglishaw v Australian Crime Commission [2006] FCA 819 ; Williams v Keelty [2001] FCA 1301 ; [2001] 1111 FCR 175 at (235) per Hely J). Here, however, it is necessary for the accused to demonstrate that ss 3K(3)(a) and (b) were breached. It almost must also demonstrate that ss 3K(3)(B) and 3 (C) were breached.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCAFC 183" id="cs2">13 Sundberg J heard the warrant proceeding on 1 and 2 June 2006. On 30 June 2006, his Honour delivered judgment, dismissing the application. His Honour stated (in Egglishaw v Australian Crime Commission [2006] FCA 819 ; (2006) 230 ALR 254 ("the warrant judgment") at [13]) that three issues fell for determination:

 • the applicant's attack on the warrant on the same grounds as those dealt with by Young J in A2 v Australian Crime Commission [2006] FCA 106 (the A2 point);
 • his attack on the procedure by which the Commission obtained the notebook; and
 • his attack on the procedure by which the Commission obtained the DVDs. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 939" id="cs3">26 Sundberg J found ( Egglishaw v ACC (2006) 230 ALR 254 ; [2006] FCA 819) that:

 • The computer was not seized at the hotel, but even if it was, s 3L was not engaged because the computer was not operated at the hotel and hence the taking of the forensic image was not unlawful. • The ACC was not bound to use the procedure provided in s 3L(1) and (1A) which involved operating the computer at the hotel and copying the information at the hotel by bringing equipment to the hotel. • The ACC had not failed to show that it was "significantly more practicable to [move the computer to the ACC offices] having regard to the timeliness and cost of examining ... [the computer there] and the availability of expert assistance," in compliance with s 3K(2)(a)(i).  31 Following the delivery of judgment by Sundberg J, Browne  Co again wrote to Mr Milroy on 17 July 2006, as follows:

 [O]n 30 June 2006, his Honour Justice Sundberg delivered judgment in the matter of Egglishaw v Australian Crime Commission [2006] FCA 819. These proceedings related to the hard drive of a laptop computer owned by our client (the Egglishaw hard drive) seized pursuant to a Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (the Act) search warrant executed on our client's hotel room by members of the staff of the ACC on 14 February 2004. During the course of his judgment, His Honour effectively confirms that the Egglishaw hard drive was seized pursuant to section 3K of the Act. Purusant to section 3N of the Act, this entitles our clients to be provided with a copy of the material seized.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] WASC 247" id="cs4">94 The approach of Heerey J was approved by Branson J in Kennedy v Baker [2004] FCA 562 ; (2004) 135 FCR 520 at [85] and [86] and by Sundberg J in Egglishaw v Australian Crime Commission [2006] FCA 819 at [19] . I would add to the proposition set out above that where documents are removed from premises without lawful authority, those responsible for the removal and those into whose hands the documents pass can have no title to them, nor any right to possession.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CYBERCRIME BILL 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION ACT 2002 </title>
<title id="l2">AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION ACT 2002 - SECT 29 Power to obtain documents</title>
<title id="l3">CRIMES ACT 1914 </title>
<title id="l4">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l5">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3C Interpretation</title>
<title id="l6">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3E When search warrants can be issued</title>
<title id="l7">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3F The things that are authorised by a search warrant</title>
<title id="l8">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3K Use of equipment to examine or process things</title>
<title id="l9">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3L Use of electronic equipment at premises</title>
<title id="l10">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l11">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l12">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>