Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1441">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1441">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1441">defence and war</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1441">veterans</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1441">whether tribunal committed errors of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1441">whether tribunal posed and answered wrong question</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1441">whether material before tribunal raised reasonable hypothesis that veteran's disease arose out of or was attributable to his operational service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1441">whether tribunal's failure to address expressly this hypothesis resulted in its failure to comply with s 43(2b) of administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)  held: appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 1441">tribunal made an error of law by failing to consider hypothesis expressly in its reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 1441">tribunal did not find beyond reasonable doubt that hypothesis did not contribute towards veteran's disease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">veterans' affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">veterans' entitlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">disability pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">eligible war service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">hypertension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">consumption of alcohol</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">statement of principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">whether administrative appeals tribunal erred in failing to apply all the elements required by the relevant statement of principles in respect of hypertension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">meaning of "cannot be decreased to less than 300 gms per week"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">veterans' entitlements act 1986 (cth) ss 7(1)(b) , 9 (1), 120 , 196b  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">whether notice of appeal complies with requirements to state a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">decision of administrative appeals tribunal to vary decision of veterans' review board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">requirement to state questions of law with precision in appeal from tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth) s 44(1)  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">appeal on question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal decisions limited to questions of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth) s 44(1)  words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">"cannot be decreased" held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[2006] FCA 1523">no error of construction on part of tribunal; question of law not properly raised in notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 125">customs and excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 125">diesel fuel rebate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 125">whether fuel used at residential premises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 125">at hospitals, nursing homes and aged person homes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 125">public utility under general statutory obligation to provide electricity to customers in north queensland</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 125">provision of electricity to island communities in the torres strait</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 125">whether purchase of fuel "for use" by public utility provider "at" residential and other premises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 125">whether the criteria in s 78a(1) (b), (c) and (d) of the excise act 1901 satisfied by the undisputed facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 125">whether a question of law sufficiently formulated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 125">appeal against setting aside tribunal decision dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 259">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 259">appeal from orders made by the primary judge under s 44 of the administrative appeals act 1975 (cth) deportation under s 200 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 259">whether failure to make material findings of fact as to risk of recidivism and hardship to appellant if deported</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 259">balancing protection of australian community from repetition of offences against hardship likely to flow to appellant and the appellant's family if the appellant were returned to china.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2003] AATA 285">civil aviation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2003] AATA 285">civil aviation regulations 1988 ("the regulations ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2003] AATA 285">certificate of approval</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2003] AATA 285">applicant installed engine in aircraft without authorised release certificate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2003] AATA 285">applicant had previously contravened the regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2003] AATA 285">whether engine installation constituted a contravention of the regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2003] AATA 285">whether applicant a fit and proper person to hold certificate of approval</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2003] AATA 285">whether applicant's certificate of approval should be cancelled.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application of chan v minister for immigration and ethnic affairs [1989] hca 62 ; (1989) 169 clr 379</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1990] FCA 169">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1990] FCA 169">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1990] FCA 169">whether unverified statement under s.13 of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) admissible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1990] FCA 169">whether self-serving</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1990] FCA 169">whether part of the res gestae  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1990] FCA 169">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1990] FCA 169">s.13</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1990] FCA 169">nature of s.13 statement  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1990] FCA 169">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1990] FCA 169">s.16(1) adjr act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1990] FCA 169">whether decision void or voidable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1990] FCA 169">whether trial judge failed to exercise discretion under s.16(1).  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1990] FCA 169">order 54 r.8 federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[1990] FCA 169">court may dispense with cross-examination of decision-maker in judicial review proceedings.  administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss.13 , 16 (1)  evidence act 1905 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">cited from="[1990] FCA 169">ss.7a, 7b, 7c  migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.15">cited from="[1990] FCA 169">ss.38 , 39</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">new trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">denial of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">submission that evidence of witness should not be accepted stopped by judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">evidence accepted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">whether new trial should be granted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">repatriation pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">incapacity arising out of or attributable to war service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">connexion between physical condition and war service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt that grounds insufficient to grant claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">repatriation act 1920 (cth), ss. 24aa, 47, 101, 107vzzb</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth), ss. 25 , 43 , 44 (1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1955] HCA 28">constitutional law (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1955] HCA 28">freedom of inter-state trade commerce and intercourse</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1955] HCA 28">state statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1955] HCA 28">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1955] HCA 28">prohibition of public vehicles operating in the course and for the purposes of inter-state trade on state roads without licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1955] HCA 28">application for licence to be refused if official satisfied as to certain vaguely expressed matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1955] HCA 28">conditions applicable to licence if granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1955] HCA 28">"reasonable charge" for use of roads</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1955] HCA 28">impermissible matters to be taken into account in fixing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1955] HCA 28">whether power to make any charge for use of roads</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1955] HCA 28">imposition of tax on vehicles at time of application for registration and at time of each renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1955] HCA 28">offence to drive etc. vehicle on public street without paying tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[1955] HCA 28">applicability to vehicles used exclusively for the purposes of inter-state trade etc.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[1955] HCA 28">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 92</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">cited from="[1955] HCA 28">state transport (co-ordination) act 1931-1954 (no. 32 of 1931</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.15">cited from="[1955] HCA 28">no. 48 of 1954) (n.s.w.), s. 3 (3), third schedule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.16">cited from="[1955] HCA 28">motor vehicles taxation management act 1949-1951 (no. 34 of 1949</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.17">cited from="[1955] HCA 28">no. 57 of 1951) (n.s.w.), ss. 4, 5, 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.18">cited from="[1955] HCA 28">motor vehicles (taxation) act 1951 (no. 56 of 1951) (n.s.w.), s. 2.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1949] HCA 33">industrial arbitration (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1949] HCA 33">commonwealth court of conciliation and arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1949] HCA 33">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1949] HCA 33">"altering . . . the basic wage or the principles upon which it is computed"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1949] HCA 33">what constitutes such alteration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1949] HCA 33">mandamus commanding court to hear application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1949] HCA 33">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 51 (xxxv.) 75 (v.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1949] HCA 33">commonwealth conciliation and arbitration act 1904-1948 (no. 13 of 1904</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1949] HCA 33">no. 65 of 1948), ss. 13, 25.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">civil aviation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">private pilot licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">aircraft maintenance engineer licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">certificate of approval</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">suspension or cancellation of licence or certificate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">major defect or damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">fire in cockpit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">defect reporting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">fit and proper person to hold a private pilot licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">failure of duty with respect to matters affecting safe navigation or operation of aircraft</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">incompetent maintenance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.11">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">maintenance work not authorised by ame licence or coa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.12">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">maintenance limits imposed by ame licence and coa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.13">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">use of out of date maintenance schedule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.14">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">failure to observe changed maintenance requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.15">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">compliance with airworthiness directives</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.16">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">certification of completion of maintenance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.17">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">certification of co-ordination of maintenance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.18">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">recording of parts fitted to aircraft</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.19">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">compliance with maintenance data</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.20">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">compliance with manufacturers maintenance schedule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.21">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">status of service bulletins</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.22">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">calculation of aerobatic hours</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.23">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">fatigue life</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.24">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">nomination as senior lame on coa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.25">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">acceptance of nomination by conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.26">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">alteration of entries on worksheets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.27">citing from="[2010] AATA 582">fit and proper person to hold an ame licence and coa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 705">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 705">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 705">decision to appoint members to professional services review committee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 705">whether decision maker misconstrued statutory requirements dealing with requisite attributes for appointment as a member</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 705">decision not to revoke appointments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 705">alleged that decision maker failed to consider the statutory basis for revocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 705">whether there was a failure in decision making process or a failure in communicating the basis for the decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 705">whether failure by applicant to seek reasons for decision relevant to exercise of discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 705">application dismissed.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 705">admissibility of evidence not before the decision maker in proceedings for judicial review.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 680">workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 680">commonwealth employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 680">psychological disorder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 680">employee's perception of bullying by manager</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 680">whether ailment was "contributed to in a material degree by the employee's ailment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 680">perception does not have to founded on reasonable grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 680">evidence must support causative link of the perception as a material contributor to the development or aggravation of the ailment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 680">s 4 safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988-2007 (cth)   legislation: administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth) ss 43(2) , 43 (2b), 44  safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988-2007 (cth) s 4</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 189">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 189">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 189">whether failure to take into account relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 189">obligation to provide reasons for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 189">failure of reasons to deal with constituent facts to an ultimate fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 189">whether omission from statement of reasons justifies an inference that matter not taken into account.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1485">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1485">appeal from a decision of the australian fisheries management authority to grant certain statutory fishing rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1485">granting certain statutory fishing rights pursuant to s 26 of the western tuna billfish fishery management plan 2005</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1485">whether notice of appeal contained pure questions of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1485">whether the court may frame its own questions of law based on notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1485">whether reasons given by the statutory fishing rights allocation review panel (sfrarp) were adequate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1485">whether the sfrarp complied with its statutory obligation to give reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1485">whether a failure to give reasons for an administrative decision vitiates the making of that decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1485">whether a failure to give reasons for an administrative decision can constitute an error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1134">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1134">appeal from decision of administrative appeals tribunal rejecting applicant's claim to newstart allowance under social security act 1991 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1134">where tribunal found that applicant was not unemployed for purposes of s 593(1) of social security act 1991 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1134">where applicant purchased, repaired and then sold motor vehicles at a profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1134">where tribunal rejected applicant's evidence as to time he spent on vehicle-related activities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1134">whether tribunal committed error of law by failing to set out findings on material questions of fact or by failing to refer to evidence or other material which supported its findings as required by s 43(2b) of the administrative appeals act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1134">whether tribunal committed error of law by denying applicant procedural fairness or because there was no probative material to support its findings of fact or because it was biased in taking into account the applicant's previous acts of dishonesty   held: appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1134">tribunal set out findings as to level or intensity of applicant's vehicle-related activities and referred to evidence that applicant had been dishonest in support of its rejection of the applicant's evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 137">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 137">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 137">failure to provide adequate reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 137">primary judge set aside reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 137">exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 137">whether reasons or decision should be set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 137">power of tribunal to vary decision or orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 137">power did not extend to vary reasons provided for existing decision civil aviation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 137">source of power in civil aviation regulations to vary conditions of certificate of approval</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 856">statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 856">construction of s 17(3)(a) social security act 1991 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 856">whether determination and payment of compensation under motor accidents compensation act 1995 (nsw) made in settlement of a claim for the purposes of s 17(3)(a) social security act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 856">meaning to be given to "settle" and "in settlement of claim"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 856">words to be given ordinary meaning in the context of the provision as a whole and its legislative purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 856">use of same words in motor accidents compensation act not necessarily determinative of their meaning in social security act .   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 856">whether tribunal failed to give adequate reasons for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 856">whether failure to explain what tribunal took from relevant case law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 856">whether failure to give reasons for why preferred construction promoted legislative purpose of social security act .   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 856">whether tribunal took into account irrelevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 856">doctrine of irrelevant considerations not applicable because tribunal was not exercising an administrative discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 856">no irrelevant considerations impugning tribunal's decision.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 205">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 205">application for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 205">reasons for decision mere incorporation of submissions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 205">the requirement for reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 205">application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 176">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 176">extent of administrative appeals tribunal's obligations to provide reasons and to state its findings on material questions of fact and the evidence or other material on which those findings were based   defence and war</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 176">widow's pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 176">whether husband's death was 'war-caused'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 176">tribunal not reasonably satisfied on the balance of probabilities that veteran's death was attributable to or arose out of a war-caused smoking habit</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] AATA 582" id="cs0">Although Mr Ribbands submitted that Mr Snook, in conducting aircraft maintenance, at no time demonstrated a wilful disregard for his obligations or the regulations, the evidence before us and the findings we have made in respect of the audits of the various aircraft upon which Mr Snook conducted maintenance do not support that submission. In fact, there was evidence of Mr Snook deliberately altering dates on worksheets to make it appear that a category of maintenance certified as having been completed was covered by the worksheet entry in question. In any event, even if it could be said that many of the errors Mr Snook made were simply honest mistakes, that does not provide an answer to the fit and proper question. As Perram J said in Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 49 at [42] :

 It is possible that his honesty could be seen as going to fitness and propriety but it is difficult to understand, without more, how honesty might be an answer to a lack of fitness said to be constituted by incompetence.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 705" id="cs1">In undertaking that task, it is important to appreciate that a notification of the basis of a decision is conceptually distinct from the decision itself: see Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30 ; (2001) 206 CLR 323 at [30] per Gaudron J; Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 49 at [31] and Alexander
 v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2010] FCA 189 ; (2010) 265 ALR 424 at [61] . What I need to be satisfied of, if Dr Chandra is to succeed, is that the decision of the Director is infected with error. Dr Chandra cannot succeed simply by establishing that the Director's expression of the basis for his decision is infelicitous: see Tisdall v Webber [2010] FCA 501 at [13] - [14] per Ryan J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 680" id="cs2">This submission is to be rejected for two reasons. First , this is not how s 43(2B) has been repeatedly held to operate. The High Court's decision in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30 ; (2001) 206 CLR 323 at 331-332 [10] per Gleeson CJ, 349 [77] per McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ established that provisions like s 43(2B) do not require a decision maker to state findings it should have made but only to state the findings it has made; it is concerned, in other words, with the exposure by decision makers of their subjective reasoning processes. This proposition has been repeatedly applied in this Court: Appellant V324 of 2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 259 at [8] per Hill and Allsop JJ, [54]-[55] per Stone J; Repatriation Commission v Cotton [2006] FCA 1523 ; (2006) 93 ALD 118 at 128 [42] per Rares J; Gilkinson v Repatriation Commission [2008] FCA 1441 ; (2008) 104 ALD 406 at 410 [14] per Rares J; Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 49 ; (2009) 253 ALR 263 at 270 [29] per Perram J; Alexander v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2010] FCA 189 ; (2010) 265 ALR 424 at 437 [66] per Bromberg J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 189" id="cs3">It is important to appreciate that the reasons for decision of a decision-maker are conceptually distinct from the decision itself: Yusuf at [30] per Gaudron J; Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Limited [2009] FCA 49 ; [2009] 253 ALR 263 at [31] per Perram J. However, reasons for decision may provide the basis for calling into question the correctness of a decision. The failure of reasons to refer to a consideration may reflect the decision-maker's failure to have taken that consideration into account. That conclusion may more readily be drawn in a case where the decision-maker was duty bound to refer to the consideration in its reasons than in a case where the decision maker was not so bound: Kentucky Fried Chicken Pty Ltd v Gantidis [1979] HCA 20 ; (1979) 140 CLR 675 per Stephen J at 682 and 685 (with whom Gibbs, Mason and Aitkin JJ agreed). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1485" id="cs4">There is no reference, in the Full Court's reasons, to either of the High Court's decisions in Yusuf and Palme . Given that it was common ground that, in giving inadequate reasons, the Tribunal had committed a jurisdictional error of law, I assume that the Court's attention was not drawn to these decisions although I note that, in the primary judge's reasons, His Honour observed, referring to Yusuf , that "it is unlikely that the error of law constituted by inadequate reasons could be jurisdictional": see Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 49 ; (2009) 108 ALD 329 at 345. Whilst it may be accepted that the failure, on the part of a decision maker, to comply with a statutory obligation to provide reasons might constitute an error of law it does not follow that such an error is jurisdictional in nature such as to justify the setting aside of the impugned decision. That position does not change simply because the decision-maker is no longer available to provide further and better reasons. That circumstance does not, in my respectful opinion, render it inevitable that the decision under review should be set aside.  In Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 49 ; (2009) 108 ALD 329 at 337 Perram J, without expressing a concluded view, said that there was "much to be said" for the views of Finkelstein J in Lees . His Honour suggested two additional considerations which supported Finkelstein J's reasons for doubting the correctness of the decision in Dornan . These additional considerations were:
"First, the reasons which attend an administrative decision are conceptually distinct from that decision and it is the decision, and not the reasons which accompany it, which is the subject of judicial review or, as here, appeal under s 44.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1134" id="cs5">The question whether the Tribunal has complied with s 43(2B) in a particular case is, I think, a question of law: Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 49 ; (2009) 253 ALR 263 at 271-273 [30] - [37] per Perram J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 137" id="cs6">4 The primary judge relevantly concluded ( Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 49 ; (2009) 108 ALD 329) that:

(a) it was open to the Tribunal to impose those conditions; and

(b) the Tribunal had not complied with obligations imposed by s 43(2) of the AAT Act to provide reasons which were adequate. The primary judge set aside the reasons for decision of the Tribunal and ordered ' that the Tribunal as originally constituted provide reasons in accordance with s 43(2) ' ('the remittal order').</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 856" id="cs7">The requirement that the Tribunal give reasons for its decision, the principles relating to that obligation and the fact that that an allegation of a failure to do so involves a question of law, were all common ground between the parties. Perram J recently discussed these matters in Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd (2009) 253 ALR 263 ; [2009] FCA 49 at [22] - [37] and [46]. The summary in Ainger v Coffs Harbour City Council [2005] NSWCA 424 at [47] - [49] about the principles informing the requirement to give reasons is also useful. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 229" id="cs8">
 On 6 February 2009 the applicant's appeal to this Court was allowed: Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 49.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 205" id="cs9">That was certainly not the case here. ...

In applying this decision it has subsequently been held that "... it is generally true that merely to set out two competing sets of reasons and to say that one is preferred ... is not a satisfactory method of complying with the judicial duty to give reasons ": Fyntray Constructions Pty Ltd v Macind Drainage  Hydraulic Services Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 238 at [66] per Heydon JA (Hodgson JJA and Ipp AJA agreeing). See also: Goldsmith v Villanueva [2000] NSWSC 1181 at [13] per Adams J; Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 49 at [44] to [45] per Perram J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 176" id="cs10">Counsel for the respondent accepted that the question as posed in the Notice of Appeal was a question of law within the meaning of s 44(1) of the AAT Act. In the circumstances, it is unnecessary to address the observations of Gummow J, when a member of this Court, in TNT Skypak International (Aust) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1988] FCA 119 ; (1988) 19 ATR 1067 at 1069-1074 and the observations thereon of Branson and Stone JJ in Birdseye v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2003] FCAFC 232 ; (2003) 38 AAR 55 , of Branson J, with whose reasons for judgment Spender and Nicholson JJ agreed, in Comcare v Etheridge [2006] FCAFC 27 ; (2006) 149 FCR 522 at 526-530 and of Perram J in Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 49 ('Central Aviation') at [23] et seq and the significance of the amendments to s 44 of the AAT Act effected by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Amendment Act 2005 (Cth) (Act No. 38 of 2005). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 43 Tribunal's decision on review</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 43AA Correction of errors in decisions or statement of reasons</title>
<title id="l3">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l4">CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l5">CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 20AB Flying aircraft without licence etc.</title>
<title id="l6">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l7">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 72 Exception: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traditional laws and customs</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS (COSTS) ACT 1981 </title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS (COSTS) ACT 1981 - SECT 6 Costs certificates for respondents--Federal appeals</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l11">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 43 Visa holders must usually enter at a port</title>
<title id="l12">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 44 Extent of following Subdivisions</title>
<title id="l13">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 430 Refugee Review Tribunal to record its decisions etc.</title>
<title id="l14">CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 </title>
<title id="l15">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 613">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 613">preliminary discovery application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 613">notice to produce seeking draft reports prepared under s 60 of the insurance act 1973 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 613">whether reports prohibited from publication under australian prudential regulation authority act 1998 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 613">whether reports relevant for the purposes of preliminary discovery application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 613">whether public interest immunity applies to reports procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 613">preliminary discovery application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 613">notice to produce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 613">proper scope of notice to produce in preliminary discovery application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 115">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 115">appeal from single judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 115">whether there is power to issue notice to produce under order 33 rule 12 where applicant for notice is a respondent to pre-action discovery under order 15a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 115">whether order 15a is a self-contained order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 115">appeal allowed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">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="cp2.3">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="cp2.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">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="cp2.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">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="cp2.9">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="cp2.10">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="cp2.11">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="cp2.12">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="cp2.13">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="cp2.14">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>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l3">INSURANCE ACT 1973 </title>
<title id="l4">INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 60 Report of APRA or the inspector</title>
<title id="l5">INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 125 APRA Act secrecy provisions apply</title>
<title id="l6">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l7">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l8">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 56 Suits against the Commonwealth</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">in primary proceeding, applicant challenged decision of minister to issue notice of receipt of extradition request in relation to applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">primary judge dismissed that application summarily as an abuse of process on ground that applicant had previously failed up to appellate level in challenge to determination by magistrate that applicant was eligible for surrender and to issue by magistrate of warrant for applicant's imprisonment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">it was a condition of magistrate's jurisdiction that minister had issued a notice of receipt of extradition request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">discussion of criterion for summary dismissal and criterion for final dismissal in the case of abuse of process. practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">in primary proceeding, applicant challenged decision of minister to issue notice of receipt of extradition request in relation to applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">primary judge dismissed that application summarily as an abuse of process on ground that applicant had previously failed up to appellate level in challenge to determination by magistrate that applicant was eligible for surrender and to issue by magistrate of warrant for applicant's imprisonment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">it was a condition of magistrate's jurisdiction that minister had issued a notice of receipt of extradition request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">discussion of criterion for summary dismissal and criterion for final dismissal in the case of abuse of process.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 286">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 286">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 286">whether order of dismissal final or interlocutory for purposes of right of appeal. held : leave to appeal required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 178">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 178">whether summary dismissal as an abuse of process in the federal magistrates court final or interlocutory decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 178">abuse of process because issues already decided in other proceedings by applicant procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 178">time to file appeal against interlocutory judgment of the federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 178">federal court rules o 52 r 5(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">proceedings relating to decisions of minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs refusing grant of student visa and refusing revocation of refusal to grant visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">where minister contended certain information protected under s 503a of migration act 1958 ("the act ")  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">whether anshun estoppel should apply to judicial review of administrative action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">questions concerning the construction of s 503a of the act unreasonably not raised in previous proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">whether special circumstances exist that permit raising questions in these proceedings that should reasonably have been raised in previous proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">no special circumstances found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">hire of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">contractual indemnity by hirer against loss caused to owner from use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">action for damages against hirer and owner arising out of use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">notices of contribution between hirer and owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">claim of contribution by owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">apportionment of liability between defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">subsequent action by owner for indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">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="cp4.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">wrongs act 1958 (vict.) s. 24 (1) (c).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>