Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">szbel v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">protection visa decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant claimed he feared persecution on basis of his conversion to christianity if returned to iran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">delegate of the first respondent refused to grant appellant protection visa because not satisfied of the genuineness of appellant's conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">review by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant invited by tribunal to give evidence relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant gave evidence addressed to the delegate's concern regarding the genuineness of his conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa on the basis that appellant's claims were not credible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether tribunal failed to notify the appellant adequately of the issues to which its reasoning processes were directed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether failure of tribunal to ask the appellant to address issues that it considered might be important amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">applicant a woman with culturally induced reluctance to divulge to men what had happened to her</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">indications in material in support of application that she had not divulged everything</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">tribunal member made no attempt to ascertain what more she might say</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">relevance of ministerial guidelines for dealing with gender-related claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">whether guidelines applicable to tribunal estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">res judicata , issue estoppel and anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">previous proceedings in respect of same decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">denial of procedural fairness not raised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">could not have been raised in previous federal court proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">not raised in previous high court proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">application for order nisi dismissed by consent courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">time limitations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">proceeding remitted from high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">whether time limits in high court rules applicable in federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">whether decision of primary judge final or interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">applicability of high court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">where application in the high court for the issue of the constitutional writs remitted to the federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">application in high court out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">whether lack of time limits for institution of application for issue of constitutional writs in federal court rules obviated the need for an extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">whether time limits for application seeking issue of writs of certiorari and mandamus should give way where relief in the nature of prohibition warranted. judgments and orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 89">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 89">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 89">no reviewable error migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 89">failure to attend migration review tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 89">letters sent to applicant in accordance with the requirements of the migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 89">whether sufficient notice given practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 89">remitter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 89">application for review made to the high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 89">out of time under high court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 89">remitted to federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 89">what constitutes the subject matter of a remitted application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 89">remitted application for review treated as application for extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 89">whether high court rules or federal court rules apply to remitted application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 89">whether time limits in court rules are substantive or procedural</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 89">federal court's power to extend time limitations in high court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 89">whether order nisi interlocutory or final</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 2">plaintiff s157/2002 v commonwealth of australia  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 2">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 2">privative clauses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 2">whether the decision by the refugee review tribunal affirming the decision of a delegate of the minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs refusing the plaintiff's application for a protection visa is a "privative clause decision" within s 474 of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 2">whether s 474(1) of the act is construed as ousting judicial review by the high court.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 2">whether s 474 and s 486a of the act are invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 2">whether s 474(1)(c) of the act is directly inconsistent with s 75 of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 2">whether s 474(1)(a) and (b) of the act are inseparable from s 474(1)(c) of the act and are consequently invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 2">whether s 486a of the act will apply to a "decision" when there has been jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 2">whether s 486a of the act is a law incidental to the legislative power conferred by ss 51(xix) , (xxvii), (xxix) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 2">whether s 486a of the act is within the express incidental power conferred by s 51 (xxxix) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2003] HCA 2">whether s 486a of the act is inconsistent with s 75(v) of the constitution .   immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2003] HCA 2">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2003] HCA 2">whether decision affirming the decision of a delegate of the minister refusing application for a protection visa is a "privative clause decision" within s 474 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[2003] HCA 2">whether s 474(1) of the act ousts judicial review by the high court pursuant to s 75 of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[2003] HCA 2">whether s 486a of the act is constitutionally valid.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">hire of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">contractual indemnity by hirer against loss caused to owner from use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">action for damages against hirer and owner arising out of use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">notices of contribution between hirer and owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">claim of contribution by owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">apportionment of liability between defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">subsequent action by owner for indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">whether estopped by failure in original action to plead indemnity in defence to the claim for contribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">wrongs act 1958 (vict.) s. 24 (1) (c).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 244">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 244">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 244">chinese applicant claiming persecution for participation in an underground christian church</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 244">disbelieved by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 244">no jurisdictional error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 244">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1280">category: no</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">applicant claimed to be suffering from procrastination and other psychological impairments when he gave evidence at a hearing before the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">the tribunal rejected this evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">whether the tribunal fell into jurisdictional error by not complying with s 425 of the migration act 1958 (cth)  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">hearsay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">factual findings of an administrative tribunal contained within its reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">admissible for non-hearsay purpose in judicial proceedings to prove the reasons of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 41">subsequently admissible to prove the truth of the findings via s 60(1) evidence act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 338">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 338">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 338">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 338">tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 338">whether tribunal obliged to insist that appellant use interpreter instead of answering questions in english</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 338">whether denial of procedural fairness because appellant misunderstood questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 338">tribunal's obligation to provide particulars of information and indication of its relevance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 338">whether tribunal relied on any information of which it was obliged to provide particulars and an indication of relevance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 338">whether tribunal understood its task</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 338">whether tribunal took into account irrelevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1299">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1299">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1299">applicant suffering mental impairments at hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1299">impairments established by evidence not before tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1299">whether applicant denied real and meaningful opportunity to give his evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1299">tribunal assessed his evidence upon false assumptions about his mental capacities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1299">jurisdictional error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1299">matter remitted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1219">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1219">review of decision of rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1219">where applicant's grounds for suggesting tribunal made a jurisdictional error are confused and not particularised.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 905">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 905">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 905">indian claiming political persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 905">disbelieved by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 905">assessment of evidence of tribunal's conduct of hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 905">no evidence of bias or serious mistranslation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 905">no jurisdictional error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 905">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">interpreters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">allegation of inadequate interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">power of the court to appoint an expert. administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">administration of highly specific questions by a tribunal member</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">whether unfair</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">whether an indication of predisposition. migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">whether independent evidence used to falsify an answer is "information" within s 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 758">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 758">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 758">chinese applicant claiming persecution for importing falun gong literature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 758">disbelieved by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 758">no jurisdictional error shown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 758">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">alleged inadequacy of interpretation of hearing before the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">whether interpretation gave rise to a breach of s 425 migration act 1958 (cth) and procedural unfairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">circumstances of the case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">whether federal magistrate's treatment of expert evidence on standard of interpretation was in error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">whether federal magistrate's findings with respect to appellant's credibility in error    estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">whether judgment in first respondent's favour following appellant's failure to appear gave rise to a res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">whether judgment determining whether application should be re-instated gave rise to a res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">principles to be applied in determining whether a res judicata arises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">whether final determination of the merits of the case so as to give rise to a res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">whether prior proceedings gave rise to anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">whether further application an abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 630">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 630">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 630">lebanese christian affected by conflict between muslim factions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 630">tribunal found no convention nexus to harms feared</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 630">no procedural error in refusal of more time to present evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 630">no material mistranslations shown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 630">no other jurisdictional error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 630">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 559">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 559">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 559">indian applicant claiming political persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 559">tribunal disbelieved claimed involvement in murder charges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 559">reliance on dfat inquiries in india</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 559">not invitation for additional evidence within s.424(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 559">sufficiency of malayalam interpreter at tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 559">standard of interpreting not shown to be inadequate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 559">no jurisdictional error established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 559">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 109">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 109">application for review of rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 109">where applicant does not particularise grounds of application.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1684">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1684">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1684">standard of interpreting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1684">whether the tribunal failed to comply with s.425 of the migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1684">whether misapplication of the refugees convention definition of "refugee".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1662">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1662">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1662">chinese chef assaulted by criminals acting for government officials who demanded free meals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1662">tribunal found no convention nexus and fears not well-founded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1662">no jurisdictional error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1662">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1648">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1648">review of decision of rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1648">where applicant claims significant tribunal question mistranslated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1648">where expert evidence is not contradicted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1648">where applicant's response causes tribunal to come to a view about his adherence to falun gong</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1648">constitutional writs granted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1434">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1434">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1434">difficulty finding interpreter for applicant's indian dialect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1434">hearing adjourned to next day</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1434">applicant failed to attend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1434">whether reasonable excuse for absence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1434">notice of adjournment unreasonable in circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1434">matter remitted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1192">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1192">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1192">chinese applicant claiming political and religious persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1192">disbelieved by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1192">no defect in interpreting established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1192">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1192">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 839">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 839">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 839">hearing conducted via video-link</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 839">whether failure to comply with s.425 of the migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 839">whether inadequate interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 839">whether failure to consider applicant's claims.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 881">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 881">review of decision of rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 881">where tribunal considered the applicant provided changing evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 881">where applicant provided documents to the tribunal which were given no weight because of their illegibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 881">whether breach of s.424a migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 881">whether tribunal complied with s.430(1) migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 881">whether tribunal conducted hearing in accordance with s.425 migration act 1958 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 23">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 23">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 23">chinese applicant claiming persecution as christian</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 23">tribunal did not accept he was a genuine practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 23">findings based on knowledge of bible and christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 23">whether tribunal addressed relevant issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 23">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 23">errors in interpreting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 23">no jurisdictional error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.9">citing from="[2008] FMCA 23">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1414">complaint of inadequate interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1414">inadequate interpretation may demonstrate jurisdictional error but close attention is needed to specific inadequacies alleged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1414">no earlier complaint before federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 1414">no jurisdictional error established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1588">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1588">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1588">chinese applicant claiming persecution for falun gong practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1588">disbelieved by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1588">no jurisdictional error found.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1527">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1527">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1527">bangladeshi applicant claiming religious and political persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1527">significant claims disbelieved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1527">tribunal not satisfied of real chance of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1527">no jurisdictional error found.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1550">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1550">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1550">pakistani fearing reprisal attacks from muslim extremist organisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1550">tribunal materially relied upon mistranslation of evidence at hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1550">failed to address contended inadequacy of state protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1550">jurisdictional errors found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1550">matter remitted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1226">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1226">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1226">where appellant found to have been persecuted for past political activity and to have fled to australia to escape persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 1226">where appellant has not since being persecuted expressed an interest in pursuing further political activity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 1226">where decision to refuse visa has been affirmed on ground that appellant will not engage in further political activity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 1226">whether tribunal erred by failing to ask why appellant had ceased to pursue or be interested in further political activity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 1226">whether tribunal erred by failing to ask whether the appellant's cessation of and disinterest in further political activity was a consequence of the persecution it had found him to have suffered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 1226">whether tribunal erred by failing to consider whether the appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution in circumstances where it was necessary for him to be inactive politically in order to avoid persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 1226">held: tribunal erred</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 244" id="cs0">However, I cannot see, in the circumstances as described by the applicant, any possible material error in interpretation affecting the Tribunal's proceedings. The incident shows, indeed, that the Tribunal was given the evidence which the applicant wished it to receive. The incident, does not provide any evidence which could satisfy principles of jurisdictional error in relation to the provision of inadequate interpreting services (see Perera v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507 ; (1999) 92 FCR 6 , Appellant P119/2002 v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 230 , VWFY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1723 , M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212 , and SZJBD v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2009] FCAFC 106 at [73] ) </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1280" id="cs1">It is established that an appellant who alleges that there was inadequate interpretation amounting to a breach of the obligation contained in s 425(1) of the Act must show that:

 (a) The standard of interpretation at the Tribunal hearing was so inadequate that he or she was, effectively, prevented from giving evidence at the Tribunal; or

 (b) errors made by the interpreter at the Tribunal hearing were material to the conclusions of the Tribunal adverse to the appellant.

Questions of fact and degree are involved, and a qualitative assessment must be made of the conduct of the Tribunal hearing as a whole: Appellant P119/2002 v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 230 , at [17] and [22]; Tobasi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 1050 ; VWFY v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1723 ; and M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212. The judgment in Perera v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507 is often cited as one of the foundation authorities on the question of the adequacy of interpretation. That judgment should now be read in view of the recent academic criticism in A Hayes and S Hale, "Appeals on Incompetent Interpreting" (2010) 20 Journal of Judicial Administration 119 , at 127. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 41" id="cs2">Instead, the learned Federal Magistrate reasoned this way:
 In my opinion, SCAR stands as binding authority for an underlying principle going beyond the issue of fitness to "represent himself before the Tribunal" on the day of a hearing, which was raised by the facts of that case (see [13]-[16] and [40]-[41]). The broader foundation of the Full Court's decision is pointed to by the analogous circumstances that their Honours identify in [37] above. These include categories of jurisdictional error where a substantial error of translation has prevented the applicant meaningfully communicating his evidence to the Tribunal, where it assessed his evidence upon false assumption as to his evidence, and where this materially affected the outcome (see authorities such as Perera v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507 ; (1999) 92 FCR 6 , VWFY v Minster for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1723 , M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212 , SZGYM v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1923 , and SZJBD v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2009] FCAFC 106 at [73]). Plainly, such a jurisdictional error affecting a hearing of a Tribunal does not usually, if ever, have the drastic and irremediable effects which concerned Branson J. The important consideration of fairness, which in my opinion the Full Court's judgment in SCAR points to, is that a significant impairment to communication at a hearing arising from language or mental state should be taken into account by the Tribunal when assessing the person's evidence, and that the Tribunal should not make its decision based upon a false assumption that the impairment did not exist.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 338" id="cs3">When the Tribunal has exercised the discretion in favour of directing that evidence be given through an interpreter, jurisdictional error may occur because of the lack of competence of the interpreter chosen. This is because the applicant before the Tribunal is deprived of the opportunity to give evidence and present arguments to the Tribunal at its hearing. The Tribunal's obligation pursuant to s 425 of the Migration Act to invite an applicant to a hearing at which the applicant can give evidence and present arguments is not complied with if, having issued the invitation, the Tribunal does not provide a hearing that makes the invitation a reality. See M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212 at [34] - [39] and the cases there cited. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1299" id="cs4">In my opinion, SCAR stands as binding authority for an underlying principle going beyond the issue of fitness to "represent himself before the Tribunal" on the day of a hearing, which was raised by the facts of that case (see [13]-[16] and [40]-[41]). The broader foundation of the Full Court's decision is pointed to by the analogous circumstances that their Honours identify in [37] above. These include categories of jurisdictional error where a substantial error of translation has prevented the applicant meaningfully communicating his evidence to the Tribunal, where it assessed his evidence upon false assumptions as to his evidence, and where this materially affected the outcome (see authorities such as Perera v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507 ; (1999) 92 FCR 6 , VWFY v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1723 , M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212 , SZGYM v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1923 , and SZJBD v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2009] FCAFC 106 at [73] ). Plainly, such a jurisdictional error affecting a hearing of a Tribunal does not usually, if ever, have the drastic and irremediable effects which concerned Branson J. The important consideration of fairness, which in my opinion the Full Court's judgment in SCAR points to, is that a significant impairment to communication at a hearing arising from language or mental state should be taken into account by the Tribunal when assessing the person's evidence, and that the Tribunal should not make its decision based upon a false assumption that the impairment did not exist. If the Tribunal does make a decision upon a false assumption as to the opportunity enjoyed by the applicant at the hearing under s.425 , and if this has materially affected the Tribunal's conclusions, the Tribunal has failed to exercise its jurisdiction according to law. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1219" id="cs5">The second ground was that: "The Tribunal failed to consider the first respondents invite the applicant for a hearing using the assistance of a different interpreter. "
I find this ground difficult to understand. If it is a complaint about the interpretation at the hearing before the Tribunal then this cannot be made to the court without some evidence to support it. Whilst inadequate interpretation can amount to a breach of s.425 ; M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1212 per Gray J, a claim such as that must be proved. Middleton J said in SZJZE v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1653 at [21] :

 "In order for the appellants to succeed they need to establish by probative evidence that: (a) the standard of interpretation at the Tribunal hearing was so inadequate that the appellants were effectively prevented from giving evidence at the hearing; or (b) errors made by the interpreter at the Tribunal hearing were material to the conclusions of the Tribunal adverse to the appellants. " [There follows a series of authorities]

It is normal in cases of this nature to have a transcript of the evidence and some evidence from a qualified interpreter that shows what the alleged failings are. None of this has been provided in this case and that ground must be rejected. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1304" id="cs6">On this aspect, I consider the Federal Magistrate accurately stated the current state of the law when he observed (at [2009] FMCA 559 at [55] ) that:

 ... On current authorities, this obligation arose under ss.422B and 425 only if, in fact, "the interpretation was so incompetent that he was effectively prevented from giving his evidence" (see Perera v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507 ; (1999) 92 FCR 6 at [39] ). Later judgments which have applied this test have considered the nature of any insufficient or incomplete translations, the existence of material factual errors which were not corrected, and whether any errors "deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to succeed" (compare Finkelstein J in VWFY v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1723 at [27] , and Gray J in M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212 at [51] ).

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 905" id="cs7">In relation to the quality of the interpreting services provided by the Tribunal, on the evidence before me which I can rely upon I am not satisfied that there was such inadequacy of interpreting in relation to a particular part of the hearing or overall, as to satisfy the tests which have been identified in relevant authorities (see Perera v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507 ; (1999) 92 FCR 6 , VWFY v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1723 , Mazhar v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1759 at [25] , [32], M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212 , and my discussion in SZJQN v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2007] FMCA 1550). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 106" id="cs8">72 It has been held that an inadequate standard of interpretation may interfere with the right of an applicant to present a case to the RRT to such a degree that jurisdictional error has occurred (see e.g. Perera v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507 ; (1999) 92 FCR 6 ; WACO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 171 ; (2003) 131 FCR 511 ( "WACO" )). Occasionally such an allegation upon examination sustains a conclusion that there has been a failure to afford the hearing which s 425 of the Act guarantees (see e.g. M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212). But the opposite conclusion may also be available (see e.g. Mazhar v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1759 ; (2000) 183 ALR 188 at [39] , WACO at [63]-[69], SZKLX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1414 at [12] ). Regardless of the outcome of different cases arising from different factual circumstances, however, the discussion in those cases reveals no real difference of principle. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 758" id="cs9">The applicant also again claimed that there had not been an exact interpretation at the hearing of the Tribunal. However, there is manifestly insufficient evidence before me to allow me to find that jurisdictional error has been established in relation to this in accordance with authorities including Perera v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507 ; (1999) 92 FCR 6 , VWFY v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1723 , and M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 783" id="cs10">Finkelstein J applied the approach in Perera in VWFY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1723 , as did Gray J in M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212. Gray J also provided a detailed explanation of the national scheme for interpreters, the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters Ltd ( NAATI ) and its levels of accreditation (at [23]-[30]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 630" id="cs11">Considering the authorities in relation to the obligation on the Tribunal to provide competent interpreter services at a hearing, I do not consider that this point raises any grounds for concluding that this obligation was not provided at this hearing of the Tribunal (see Perera v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [1999] FCA 507 ; (1999) 56 ALD 231 , VWFY v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1723 , and M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 559" id="cs12">Moreover, even if the applicant did send a complaint about the interpreter to the Tribunal, the Tribunal was not bound to accept it and to provide another opportunity for him to give evidence. On current authorities, this obligation arose under ss.422B and 425 only if, in fact, "the interpretation was so incompetent that he was effectively prevented from giving his evidence" (see Perera v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507 ; (1999) 92 FCR 6 at [39] ). Later judgments which have applied this test have considered the nature of any insufficient or incomplete translations, the existence of material factual errors which were not corrected, and whether any errors "deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to succeed" (compare Finkelstein J in VWFY v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1723 at [27] , and Gray J in M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212 at [51] ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 109" id="cs13">Finally, the applicant told me that the interpreter could not help her communicate very well with the Judge. Apparently, the interpreter had told her about halfway through the hearing that she was not feeling well. Once again I have no evidence of this, other than the applicant's statement. If she really wished to allege that interpreting difficulties were such as to bring her within the scope of authorities such as SZGYM v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1923 , M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1212 , SZJZE v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1653 , Perera v Minister for Immigration [1999] FCA 507 , she would have to produce some evidence. This could have been from the interpreter herself or from the hearing tape. Once again nothing was produced to me. This Court is only able to deal with matters as they come before it on the day of the hearing. The applicant did not ask for an adjournment to obtain the tape but had she done so, I would have been reluctant to grant it. The applicant has had considerable notice of this hearing. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1684" id="cs14">The mistranslations and omissions by the interpreter were of " significance, or at least of potential significance, to the outcome of the case " ( M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212 per Gray J at [51]) given their direct relevance to the critical credibility finding. I am satisfied, reading the Tribunal decision as a whole, that the errors made by the interpreter had a material influence on the reasoning of the Tribunal in relation to the applicant's credibility. Hence there has been a jurisdictional error consisting of a failure to comply with s.425. Whether misapplication of the Convention definition
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1662" id="cs15">The second ground suggests that there were problems of communication between the applicant and the Tribunal, possibly by reason of interpretation problems. However, there is no evidence that the quality of the interpretation provided at the hearing fell short of the standard required by authorities such as Perera v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs (1999) 92 FCR 6 , VWFY v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1723 at [27] , and M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212 at [34] - [39], [48]-[51]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1648" id="cs16">I think it is now accepted that an error in interpretation is not required to be an error interpretation throughout a hearing but can be an error in interpretation that takes place in the hearing that has a significant effect upon the decision; SZJQN v Minister for Immigration [2007] FMCA 1550 ; MI75 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration (2007) FCA 1212. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1434" id="cs17">The providing of sufficiently competent interpreting services to applicants before the Refugee Review Tribunal is a daily experience for that body, and the Court should be slow to dictate the procedures which it must follow, and the expense which it must incur when doing so. However, a body of judicial authority establishes that there is a duty on the Tribunal to provide a "competent interpreter" , who in fact provides "a reasonably accurate interpretation" of what the applicant wishes to convey to the Tribunal and of what the Tribunal wishes to convey to the applicant, when he or she attends a hearing (cf. SZGYM v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1923 at [23] and [27], also Perera v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507 ; (1999) 92 FCR 6 and other cases discussed in M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212 and VWFY v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1723). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1192" id="cs18">In relation to the interpreter, according to the Tribunal's records, a properly qualified interpreter at NAATI Level 3 was employed in the appropriate language, and there is no evidence bringing the present case within authorities such as are cited in VWFY v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1723 , or in M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 839" id="cs19">The transcript of the Tribunal hearing does not establish the claim that the interpretation provided at the hearing was defective or otherwise inadequate, let alone defective to the degree or in relation to matters of such significance that would establish a jurisdictional error (see Perera v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507 ; (1999) 92 FCR 6 ; WACO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 171 ; (2003) 131 FCR 511 ; and M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212). I note that after outlining the hearing procedure and describing the scope of the Refugee Convention and the role of the Tribunal, the Tribunal asked the applicant if he had any questions. He replied " no ". </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 881" id="cs20">The next matter raised is that the decision of the Tribunal was affected by jurisdictional error in that the Tribunal did not take into account certain relevant considerations central to his claims "because I spent three hours being questioned without a break and felt stressed and intimidated". This claim if made out is in essence one that the Tribunal did not comply with s.425 of the Act and provide the applicant with a meaningful hearing. Gray J refers to this problem in relation to interpretation in M175 v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1212 where at [51] he says: " Section 425(1) of the Migration Act obliged the Tribunal to invite the appellant to appear before it to give evidence relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision of the Minister's delegate. It is now well-established that this obligation is much more than a formality. Even though the invitation be issued, if an applicant is not afforded a real opportunity to give evidence, so that the promise of the invitation has not been fulfilled, then the Tribunal will have failed to comply with its obligation under s.425(1). See Minister for Immigration v SCAR [2003] FCAFC 126 ; also SZBEL v Minister for Immigration [2006] HCA 63. " </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 235" id="cs21">

15 There is no other basis for the suggestion of inadequate interpretation than the assertion by the appellant. Much more would be required than a bare assertion of the kind made by the appellant in this case (see, for example, STPB v Minister for Immigration and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 818 and M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212 which each involved detailed examination of not only the standard of interpretation but also whether any jurisdictional error was exposed). Moreover, the allegation is an insufficient explanation of the discrepancies identified by the RRT. In the circumstances this complaint does not identify any jurisdictional error.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 23" id="cs22">This fails to achieve the tribunal's objective of providing a fair and just hearing. 22. The most recent decision in which the Federal Court has applied the principles in Perera is found in a judgment of Gray J's in M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212. At [51] his Honour assessed various errors of the interpreter, to consider their "significance, or at least of potential significance, to the outcome of the case" , and whether "the errors deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to succeed" .  22. The most recent decision in which the Federal Court has applied the principles in Perera is found in a judgment of Gray J's in M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212. At [51] his Honour assessed various errors of the interpreter, to consider their "significance, or at least of potential significance, to the outcome of the case" , and whether "the errors deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to succeed" . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1414" id="cs23">12 The reason the appellant failed before the RRT was that his claims did not, on any view of them, raise a case that he had a well-found fear of persecution for a Convention reason and was therefore a refugee. The reason his application for judicial review failed before the Federal Magistrates Court was that no jurisdictional error appeared in the decision of the RRT. Although inadequacies of interpretation before the RRT (as appears now, and for the first time, to be suggested) may indicate jurisdictional defects in RRT proceedings, with the result that a decision of the RRT is liable to be set aside as not effectively made (see, for example, Perera v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507 ; (1999) 92 FCR 6 ( 'Perera' ) and M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212 ( 'M175' )) much more is required to demonstrate such a defect than a mere unparticularised allegation of inadequate interpretation. As both Perera and M175 demonstrate there needs to be close attention to the specific manner in which an interpretation is said to be inadequate together with a sufficient connection to the decision of the RRT which establishes that jurisdictional error has occurred. Absence of such a connection will defeat an allegation of jurisdictional error on this ground (see Waco v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 171 ; (2003) 131 FCR 511 at [63] --- [69]).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1588" id="cs24">28. The applicant has not presented any evidence showing a general failure to provide a competent standard of interpretation, nor any particular defect in interpretation having a material effect on how the Tribunal decided the case (see Perera v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507 ; (1999) 56 ALD 231 , VWFY v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1723 , and M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212 at [34] - [39], [48]-[51]). I am therefore not persuaded that the applicant was denied the opportunity required by s.425 of the Migration Act in relation to the provision of interpretation services.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1527" id="cs25">28. Before me today, the only particular point in the transcript where the applicant suggested a failure of translation had occurred, concerned the Tribunal's questions about the derivation of the letter of reference from the opposition leader. However, the transcript shows responses by the applicant which suggest that he understood the questions. He has presented no expert evidence to establish any failure by the interpreter to reach required standards of competence, nor of any mistranslation causing any material prejudice to the applicant (cf. VWFY v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1723 , and M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212 at [34] - [39], [48]-[51]). I therefore do not accept that jurisdictional error under s.425 arises from this complaint. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1550" id="cs26">

 22. The most recent decision in which the Federal Court has applied the principles in Perera is found in a judgment of Gray J's in M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212. At [51] his Honour assessed various errors of the interpreter, to consider their "significance, or at least of potential significance, to the outcome of the case" , and whether "the errors deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to succeed" . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1226" id="cs27">

49 When I granted leave to the appellant to rely on the amended notice of appeal, the Minister did not oppose the amendment provided that the appellant were ordered to pay the costs thrown away by the amendment. That is appropriate. I am of the provisional opinion that the appellant is otherwise entitled to his costs of the appeal and that there should be no order as to the costs below. (But cf: M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212 at [64] - [66] per Gray J. ) I will allow the parties seven days to make written submissions as to the precise costs orders I should make if either of them contends differently to my preliminary view. It would be desirable if they could agree on a fixed sum (even for any alternate contentions) which would save the need for any taxation or assessment. Alternatively, the parties can re-list the matter for brief oral argument. I certify that the preceding forty-nine (49) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Rares. Associate:

Dated: 15 August 2007

 Counsel for the Appellant: JE Griffiths SC (pro bono pursuant to O 80 of the Federal Court Rules )

 Counsel for the Respondent: S Kaur-Bains

 Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron

 Date of Hearing: 6 July 2007

 Date of Judgment: 15 August 2007

 AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
 URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2007/1226.html

 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l1">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 75 Original jurisdiction of High Court</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 27 Evidence on appeal</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 36 Protection visas</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 422B Exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 427 Powers of the Refugee Review Tribunal etc.</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 474 Decisions under Act are final</title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1035">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1035">tribunal dismissed application as fee not paid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1035">finding of no jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1035">applicant claimed not to have received notification of rejection of fee waiver application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1035">application without merit.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 375">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 375">appeal from federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 375">proper construction of section 66(2)(d)(iv)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 375">whether minister is required to notify of all places at which a review of a decision to grant a visa may be lodged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 375">effect of failure to include all places at which an application can be lodged on prescribed period for lodging an application for review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1112">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1112">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1112">child (residence) (class bt) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1112">migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1112">application for review of a decision of the mrt that it had no jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1112">application for fee waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1112">fee waiver refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1112">application not a valid application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1112">no reviewable error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1105">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1105">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1105">child (residence) (class bt) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1105">migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1105">application for review of a decision of the mrt affirming a decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant the visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1105">applicant over 25 at time of application and not incapacitated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1105">application for fee waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1105">fee waiver refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1105">application not a valid application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1105">no reviewable error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 967">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 967">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 967">child (residence) (class bt) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 967">migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 967">application for review of a decision of the mrt affirming a decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant the visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 967">application for fee waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 967">fee waiver refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 967">application not a valid application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 967">no reviewable error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 590">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 590">review of mrt decision refusing a skilled student visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 590">where tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision because the applicant had not made an investment into a designated security which would have given her a qualifying score overall</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 590">applicant unable to make such an investment at the time as no designated securities existed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 590">where tribunal unaware of department's policy of holding such applications in abeyance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 590">whether tribunal ought to have made inquiries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 590">tribunal's power of remittal considered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 383">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 383">review of migration review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 383">refusal of a skilled student visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 383">tribunal varying findings by the delegate in relation to the application of the points test but affirming the delegate's decision because the applicant had not made an investment into a designated security and so had not obtained a qualifying score for the visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 383">applicant unable to make such an investment at the time as no designated securities existed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 383">failure by the tribunal to enquire of the department whether it was possible for the applicant to make the required investment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 383">jurisdictional error established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 383">observations on the tribunal's power of remittal.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 375" id="cs0">The first respondent then relied on a number of authorities in which the Court or the Federal Magistrates Court made orders requiring the Tribunal to hear and determine a review application even though the notification of the decision did not comply with the regulation: Pomare v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 458 ; (2008) 167 FCR 494 ; Zhan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 327 ; (2003) 128 FCR 469 ; Patel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 392 ; (2009) 108 ALD 151 ; MZXGL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2006) FMCA 1724 ; MZXGM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2006) FMCA 1723 ; 204 FLR 480 ; SZKHR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) FMCA 138. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1112" id="cs1">However, if the Tribunal refuses the application for waiver of the fee, the Tribunal must given the Applicant a reasonable period of time to pay the application fee in light of the Applicant's particular circumstances. [17] Considerations
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1105" id="cs2">I am referred to the decision of Braganza v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [12] , which is a decision of Wilcox, Weinberg and Stone JJ. Their Honours held: Where an applicant for a visa makes an application for a waiver of the prescribed fee in accordance with regulation 4.13 , and that application is made within the prescribed period, the application for review may be entertained, provided that the fee is either eventually waived, or paid within a reasonable time after the application for waiver is rejected. That is, subsection 347(1)(c) should be read as being subject to the qualification that, provided an application for a waiver of the fee has been made within the prescribed period, the MRT is not prevented from considering the application for review merely because the prescribed fee has not been paid within the prescribed time [13] . However, if the Tribunal refuses the application for waiver of the fee, the Tribunal must give the applicant a reasonable period of time to pay the application fee in light of the applicant's particular circumstances (see, in particular, Patel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [14] . ) </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 967" id="cs3">However, if the Tribunal refuses the application for waiver of the fee the Tribunal must give the Applicant a reasonable period of time to pay the application fee, in light of the Applicant's particular circumstances. (See in particular Patel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [24] . ) In that case, which was an appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court, Gray J held, at [15]: For the purposes of the application of the principle enunciated in Braganza, however, the Tribunal was required to consider whether a reasonable time after that date had been allowed for the payment of the prescribed fee. A reasonable time can never be a period determined arbitrarily. The reasonableness of the time allowed must be determined, in each case, according to the circumstances of that case. If, in a particular case, the person to whom the letter is addressed has not received it in fact, that is one of the circumstances that must be taken into account in determining whether a reasonable time has in fact elapsed. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 590" id="cs4">His Honour was unable to find any authority on the point. It could be argued that where there are circumstances which allow the Tribunal a choice between affirming the delegate's decision or remitting the matter so as to give the applicant an opportunity to satisfy the criteria for the visa, the Tribunal would at least be required to consider the latter option. In Patel v Minister for Immigration [2009] FCA 392 the Tribunal discovered information which may have justified giving the applicant an extension of time to apply for review. In declining to consider the factual question, the Court found that the Tribunal had wrongly declined to exercise its jurisdiction. By analogy, in the instant case, had the Tribunal known of the Department's policy, it would have been required to at least consider whether it was appropriate for it to exercise its power to remit.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 383" id="cs5">It is unnecessary to decide whether the Tribunal also erred in failing to direct its mind to its discretion to remit, or to delay a decision. The error arose because the Tribunal failed to make an enquiry that would have properly informed its exercise of discretion, had the Tribunal directed its mind to it. It is safe to assume, however, that where the discretion exists, it must be exercised judicially: see for example Patel v Minister for Immigration [2009] FCA 392. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 347 Application for review by Migration Review Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 379A Methods by which Tribunal gives documents to a person other than the Secretary</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 379AA Giving documents by Tribunal where no requirement to do so by section 379A or 379B method</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 379C When a person other than the Secretary is taken to have received a document from the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 685">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 685">consideration of whether a federal magistrates in making orders dismissing the appellant's application for review before the federal magistrates court of australia fell into error by failing to find jurisdictional error on the part of the refugee review tribunal in affirming the decision of the first respondent's delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 685">consideration of whether error on the part of the federal magistrate is to be found in failing to identify contended errors of treatment by the tribunal of evidence relevant to the claims made by the appellant before the tribunal  migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 685">s 424a(1) , s 424a(3)(a) , s 424b , s 353a , s 420a , s 424aa , s 424b(3)  migration amendment (review provisions) act 2007 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 685">items 17, 18 and 33 of schedule 1  lee v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs [2005] fca 464  minister for aboriginal affairs  anor v peko-wallsend limited  ors (1985</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 685">[1986] hca 40 ; 1986) 162 clr 24</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 685">cited tefonu pty limited v insurance  superannuation commissioner [1993] fca 412 ; (1993) 44 fcr 361  nbkt v minister for immigration  multicultural affairs [2006] fcafc 195 ; (2006) 93 ald 333</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 685">cited nahi v minister for immigration  multicultural  indigenous affairs [2004] fcafc 10</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 685">cited and quoted minister for immigration  ethnic affairs v wu shan liang [1996] hca 6 ; (1996) 185 clr 259</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 685">cited abebe v commonwealth of australia (1999) 197 clr 510</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 685">cited</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 643">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 643">cross-examination on documents not tendered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 643">third party documents and prior representations of the witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 643">transcripts of examinations including transcripts that could not be tendered in penalty proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 643">discretionary considerations</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 77 Statements made at an examination: other proceedings</title>
<title id="l2">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l3">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 26 Court's control over questioning of witnesses</title>
<title id="l4">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 38 Unfavourable witnesses</title>
<title id="l5">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 41 Improper questions</title>
<title id="l6">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 42 Leading questions</title>
<title id="l7">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 192 Leave, permission or direction may be given on terms</title>
<title id="l8">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 193 Additional powers</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">reasonable grounds for believing that the defendant was not able to supply contracted services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">s 58(b) and s 75azl(3) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">twenty-six charges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">plea of guilty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">agreed facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">provision of mobile security services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">previous civil proceedings for failing to provide contracted services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">systemic failure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">failure to carry out review measures and audits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">failure to provide services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">compliance systems not operating effectively</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">failure to provide services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">contracted services provided by franchisees, licensees and sub-contractors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">offences occurred over prolonged time period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">payments of rebates to clients</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">dismissal of senior managers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">early plea</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">full cooperation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">audits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">compliance procedures introduced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">buying-back of franchises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">introduction of electronic verification system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">applicable penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">rehabilitation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">future compliance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.28">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">parity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.29">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">totality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.30">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">s 4k(3) of the crimes act 1914 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.31">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">grouping of contracts under s 79(2) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.32">cited from="[2004] FCA 1750">'at or about the same time'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 376">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 376">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 376">wholesale supply of afl apparel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 376">misuse of market power and exclusive dealing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 376">relevant factors to consider in determining appropriate penalty under s76 of trade practices act (1974) cth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 376">company defied warnings that conduct may contravene the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 376">conduct continued over substantial period of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 376">whether fact that company part of multinational group relevant consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 376">deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1032">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1032">sale of goods declared to be unsafe</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1032">prosecutions for breach of s.65c(1) of trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1032">convictions on plea of guilty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1032">appropriate penalties.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 400">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 400">offences against product safety standard provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 400">failure to affix warning notice and child resistant fasteners to bean bags</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 400">factors taken into account in discretionary imposition of penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 400">conduct of defendant in proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 400">lack of candour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 400">special nature of standards designed to protect human life</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 400">absence of injury.  trade practices act 1974 (cth) ss.65c(1)(a), 79 (1)(a)  crimes act 1910 (cth) s.19b  pretorius v venture stores (retailers) pty ltd (1992) atpr 41-166</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 695">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 695">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 695">whether representations that "ugg boots" were made in australia published on certain websites contravene ss 52 , 53 (eb) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) and ss 18 , 29 (1)(g), (k) of the australian consumer law (schedule 2 to the competition and consumer act 2010 (cth))</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 695">pecuniary penalties, injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 695">relevant matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 695">declarations pursuant to s 21 of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 695">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 372">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 372">contravention of s 65c(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 372">pecuniary penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 372">declarations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 372">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 17">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 17">sentencing of defendant for eight offences under s 75azs(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 17">where defendant pleaded guilty to eight offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 17">where defendant an unsophisticated businessman who sold baby sleeping bags imported from china on ebay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 17">where baby sleeping bags did not comply with relevant australian standard in relation to fire hazard labelling</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 17">where defendant warned by australian distributor of products that items he was selling did not comply with the standard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 17">where defendant contacted australian competition and consumer commission ('accc') in relation to sale of sleeping bags</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 17">where there was factual dispute as to content of conversations with accc representatives</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2011] FCA 17">where defendant continued to sell sleeping bags</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">citing from="[2011] FCA 17">where defendant subsequently co-operated fully with authorities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">citing from="[2011] FCA 17">whether appropriate to treat all eight offences as one offence pursuant to s 79(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">citing from="[2011] FCA 17">whether appropriate to exercise power in 19b of crimes act not to proceed to conviction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">citing from="[2011] FCA 17">consideration of matters relevant to penalty contained in s 16a and s 16c of the crimes act 1914 (cth) (' crimes act ')</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">citing from="[2011] FCA 17">where defendant did not have capacity to pay a substantial fine.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1103">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1103">prosecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1103">s 75azc(1)(g) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1103">false and misleading representations about the price of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1103">guilty plea by corporate defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1103">newspaper advertisements about sale of diamonds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1103">factors taken into account in determining penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1103">consumer protection purpose of trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1103">factors in s 16a of the crimes act 1914 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1103">deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 1103">mitigating factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 1103">no loss or damage to a particular consumer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 1103">evidence of contrition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 1103">parity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">citing from="[2008] FCA 1103">totality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">citing from="[2008] FCA 1103">time allowed for payment of fine</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 695" id="cs0">97 Considerable emphasis has been placed by the Court on general deterrence for contraventions of provisions of the TPA in previous matters involving consumer protection. These are equally applicable in respect of the consumer provisions of the CCA. As Justice Tracey stated in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Skippy Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1343 at [15] :

 It has become accepted that the imposition of substantial penalties for breaches of provisions which are designed to protect consumers, will serve to alert members of the business community to the provisions of the Act and the serious consequences which may flow from their contravention. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 372" id="cs1">As Tracey J said in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Skippy Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1343 at [21] :

 The warnings were intended to lessen the risk of harm befalling vulnerable young children. The failure to provide the cautionary notices meant that parents and carers were deprived of essential warnings and advice.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 17" id="cs2">The point has been made on many occasions: Dimmeys Stores at 43,247 per Weinberg J; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Prosecutor v MNB Variety Imports Pty Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-617 ; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Skippy Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1343 at [15] . In the context of general deterrence, I take into account the fact that the risk of fire and burning is a very dangerous one and that the goods which were the subject of the Standard were goods to be used by infants. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1103" id="cs3">29 I note that in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chubb Security Australia Proprietary Limited [2004] FCA 1750 , 30 December 2004, under the heading "Parity", Bennett J, with respect, helpfully, surveyed a number of authorities which dealt with the question of penalty in the context of that case. There was some submission made to me that a like exercise might be undertaken in this case by reference to the circumstances of and the sentences imposed in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Skippy Australia Proprietary Limited [2006] FCA 1343 , and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Allans Music Group Proprietary Limited [2002] FCA 1552. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CRIMES ACT 1914 </title>
<title id="l1">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 4AA Penalty units</title>
<title id="l2">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 16A Matters to which court to have regard when passing sentence etc.</title>
<title id="l3">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 16C Fines</title>
<title id="l4">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l5">FAIR TRADING ACT 1999 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">australian broadcasting corporation v o'neill  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunction to restrain publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">appellant restrained from broadcasting documentary film making allegations including that respondent suspected of having committed notorious unsolved crime</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">principles on which interlocutory injunction to restrain publication granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">relevance of "flexible" or "rigid" approaches to granting interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of value of free speech</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of avoiding "trial by media"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether relevant that only nominal damages likely to be awarded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of status of respondent as convicted life prisoner.  injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether general principles governing grant of interlocutory injunctions to restrain wrongs apply to interlocutory applications to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">relationship between beecham group ltd v bristol laboratories pty ltd [1968] hca 1 ; (1968) 118 clr 618 and american cyanamid co v ethicon ltd [1975] ukhl 1 ; [1975] ac 396</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether respondent had made out an entitlement to an interlocutory injunction within the principles established by beecham</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether full court and primary judge shown to have erred in granting of interlocutory injunction.  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">jurisdiction to grant interlocutory injunction to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">nature of equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctions to restrain publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">effect of common law procedure act 1854 (uk)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">effect of judicature act 1873 (uk).  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunction in defamation proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">necessity of demonstrating error in order to justify intervention by high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether error shown in approach and conclusion of full court and primary judge.  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">defences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">justification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether avoiding "trial by media" relevant to determination of "public benefit" required by defamation act 1957 (tas) s 15.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 32">polyaire pty ltd v k-aire pty ltd  intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 32">designs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 32">infringement of a registered design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 32">fraudulent imitation of a registered design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 32">where alleged infringing design sufficiently different not to be an obvious imitation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 32">whether fraudulent imitation requires that differences between alleged infringing design and registered design be attributable to dishonest disguise of the latter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 32">whether the application of a fraudulent imitation requires that alleged infringer applied design with knowledge of the existence of the registration and of absence of consent to its use, or with reason to suspect those matters.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the full court should regard itself as bound to apply a formula derived from niemann v. electronic industries ltd [1978] vicrp 44 ; (1978) vr 431</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">width of the discretion to grant leave to appeal under s. 24(1a) of the federal court of australia act 1976 .  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether any part of general overhead costs is allowable as a deduction in the determination of the profits made by an infringer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">reference to standard accountancy methods as indicating what must be deducted in order to determine the amount of a profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of a line of cases establishing the approach adopted in the united states to the solution of this problem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">onus on wrongdoer who has mixed legitimate activities with activities involving infringement of another's property right to justify the particular apportionment of costs adopted by him in his accounts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">declaration of principle that the infringer is generally at liberty to show that various categories of overhead contributed to the obtaining of the relevant profit and to show in what proportion they should be allocated in the taking of the account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of whether the profits for which the defendants must account are (in the case of a patented closure for a canister) the profits for the closures only or for the closures and canisters to which they are fitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the infringer's particular pricing policy can be relied on by him as a contribution by him to the profits unrelated to the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the profits of the whole canister and closure are fairly traceable to the use by the infringer of the invention.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">action for infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">principles governing grant or refusal.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>