Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">sweedman v transport accident commission  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">motor accident</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">applicable law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">accident occurred in new south wales between a car registered in victoria and driven by a victorian resident and a car registered in new south wales and driven by a new south wales resident</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">accident assumed to have been caused by negligence of new south wales driver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">victorian driver and passenger obtained compensation payments from the transport accident commission pursuant to transport accident act 1986 (vic)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">the commission sued the new south wales driver in the county court of victoria, exercising federal jurisdiction, for indemnity pursuant to transport accident act , s 104</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">alternative avenue of redress was available to the victorian residents under the motor accidents act 1988 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">whether the regime established by the motor accidents act supplanted that of the transport accident act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">whether identification of the law of victoria as the applicable law by virtue of common law choice of law rules and the operation of judiciary act 1903 (cth), s 80 would be inconsistent with the operation of the constitution .  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">choice of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">applicable choice of law rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">action brought on a statutory obligation of the appellant to indemnify the respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">statute provided no particular method of enforcing the obligation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">where appropriate action for enforcing the right of indemnity is an action in the nature of a quantum meruit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">where action brought in federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">whether applicable law is the law of the state with which the obligation of the appellant to indemnify the commission has the closest connection.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">motor accident</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">where statutes of different states said to be capable of being invoked in relation to the same circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">transport accident act invoked in proceedings in county court of victoria for an indemnity claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">whether the provisions of the motor accidents act spoke to, or in opposition to, those proceedings.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">inconsistency between laws of states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">where statutes of different states said to be capable of being invoked in relation to the same circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">transport accident act invoked in proceedings in county court of victoria for an indemnity claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">new south wales funds depleted in victorian proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">whether any inconsistency or clash between victorian and new south wales statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">whether state of new south wales had the greater governmental interest in providing for the compelled financial consequences of a motor vehicle accident occurring in new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.28">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">whether any such inconsistency denied the operation of the judiciary act , s 80.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.29">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">discrimination between residents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.30">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">resident of new south wales subject to claim to indemnity under victorian statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.31">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">transport accident act , s 104(1) provided that that provision did not apply to a person entitled to be indemnified by the commission under s 94 of that act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.32">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">section 94 obliged the commission to indemnify persons who have paid the transport accident charge levied upon owners of registered motor vehicles under transport accident act , s 109(1) for the relevant period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.33">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">new south wales driver would not have been subject to claim to indemnity had she been resident in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.34">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">where new south wales driver bound to hold third-party insurance pursuant to motor accidents act , ss 8 and 11</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.35">cited from="[2006] HCA 8">whether transport accident act , s 104(1) subjected new south wales driver to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to her if she were resident in victoria.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1318">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1318">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1318">freedom of information request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1318">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 541">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 541">applications for leave to appeal decisions pertaining to practice and procedure including decision refusing the grant of interlocutory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 541">need for appellate courts to exercise caution when invited to review decisions pertaining to practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 541">an application for leave to appeal does not operate as a stay of the judgment appealed from</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 541">applications dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 264">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 264">application for a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 264">whether country information was part of the reason for the decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 264">whether country information is non-disclosable information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 264">whether failure to disclose country information resulted in a denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1996] FCA 981">[ database search ] [ name search ] [ recent decisions ] [ noteup ] [ lawcite ] [ help ] vietnam veterans' association of australia new south wales branch inc v alex cohen  ors (constituting the specialists medical review council) [1996] fca 981 (15 november 1996)   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1996] FCA 981">objection to competency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1996] FCA 981">respondents contend court has no jurisdiction to review determinations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1996] FCA 981">whether determinations of statements of principles made pursuant to s 196b(2) and (3) are 'legislative' or 'administrative' in character</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1996] FCA 981">statements have binding effect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1996] FCA 981">statements apply generally to claims relating to pensions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1996] FCA 981">statements are 'disallowable instruments'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1996] FCA 981">statements legislative in nature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1996] FCA 981">whether court has jurisdiction under s 39b of the judiciary act 1903 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1996] FCA 981">whether respondent is an officer of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1996] FCA 981">authority and council are bodies corporate therefore not relevantly officers of the commonwealth when fulfilling functions of the authority or council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1996] FCA 981">whether court has accrued jurisdiction under ss 21 , 22 ,  23 of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1996] FCA 981">ss 21 , 22 , 23 do not confer jurisdiction in absence of any federal matter.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">agreement claimed to contravene the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">confidentiality claimed for certain parts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">order prohibiting publication and restricting inspection refused.  pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">amendment of statement of claim.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">function of appeal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">ambit of discretion under s.50 considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">order made prohibiting publication and permitting inspection to certain persons upon appropriate undertakings being given.  trade practices act 1974 , ss 45 and 45a;  federal court of australia act 1976 , ss.17 and 50 .  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">agreement alleged to contravene s. 45</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">confidentiality claimed for certain parts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">order prohibiting publication and restricting inspection refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 45a.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">function of appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">ambit of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">order prohibiting publication and permitting inspection to certain persons upon undertakings given</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), ss. 17 , 50 .  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">application to amend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.18">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">leave to amend refused by primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.19">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.20">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">whether proposed amendments ambiguous</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.21">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">whether proposed amendments added substance. the australian broadcasting commission ("the a.b.c.") instituted proceedings in the federal court of australia against the members for the time being of the australian cricket board ("the board") and three corporations ("the corporations"). in the proceedings the a.b.c. sought certain relief for alleged breaches of the provisions of the trade practices act 1974 ("the act ") in relation to a written agreement between the board and the corporations dated 30th may, 1979. in the course of the proceedings the court refused to allow the a.b.c. to amend the already amended statement of claim in two separate respects. the a.b.c. appealed to the full court of the federal court of australia against this decision (appeal no. g13 of 1980). on the 18th february, 1980, the primary court decided further that the a.b.c. should be granted unrestricted access to certain parts of the agreement which were claimed to be confidential and that, upon the agreement being tendered and received in evidence, no order restricting publication of those parts of the agreement should be made pursuant to s. 50 of the federal court of australia act 1976 . appeals were lodged against the two last-mentioned decisions by the board and the three corporations (appeals nos. g14 and g15 of 1980). the three appeals were heard together and disposed of in a single judgment.  held: per curiam</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.22">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">the appeal in matter g13 should be dismissed with costs because: (1) the proposed amendment to par. 5 of the amended statement of claim was ambiguous and added nothing of substance.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">privy council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">appeal from state supreme court invested with federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">matter arising under law made by common</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">raised by defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">whether court exercising concurrent state and federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 76 (ii.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">judiciary act 1901-1968 (cth), ss. 39, 40.  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">ouster of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">public policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">proceedings for divorce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">agreement between husband and wife concerning maintenance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">whether invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">whether invalidity derived from common law or statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.15">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">matrimonial causes act 1959-1966 (cth).  matrimonial causes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.16">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">agreement between husband and wife concerning maintenance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.17">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">whether enforceable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.18">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">whether attempt to oust jurisdiction of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.19">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">matrimonial causes act 1959-1966 (cth), ss. 5, 8, 23 (2) (3), 87 (1) (k).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1792">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1792">jurisdiction in an application to the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1792">identification of the respondents to the terminated complaint</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1792">application to join additional respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1792">examination of complaints made to hreoc</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1792">joinder refused.human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1792">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1792">anonymity order sought to avoid embarrassment and distress</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1792">whether necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1792">anonymity refused.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 341">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 341">review of administrative appeals tribunal ("aat") decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 341">application for documents under freedom of information act 1982 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 341">whether reasonable steps taken to locate documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2006] FCA 341">whether documents exist</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2006] FCA 341">whether findings of fact supported by evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2006] FCA 341">whether irrelevant considerations taken into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2006] FCA 341">whether wednesbury unreasonable administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2006] FCA 341">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">citing from="[2006] FCA 341">whether reasonable opportunity to cross examine witnesses and make submissions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">citing from="[2006] FCA 341">power of aat to control proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">citing from="[2006] FCA 341">relevance to proceedings</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1792" id="cs0">I note that the applicant has not been protected from embarrassment by anonymity in a large number of proceedings, and that in at least one an application for anonymity has been refused (see Lawrance v President, Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2006] FCA 342 ; (2006) 42 AAR 552 at [169] - [173]).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 341" id="cs1">4 Most of the background facts, as well as the decision of Senior Member Kelly, have been set out in my judgment in matter NSD 55 of 2005, handed down contemporaneously with this judgment; see Lawrance v President, Administrative Appeal Tribunal [2006] FCA 342. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 33 Procedure of Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 35 Hearings to be in public except in special circumstances</title>
<title id="l3">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 39 Opportunity to make submissions concerning evidence</title>
<title id="l4">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 40 Powers of Tribunal etc.</title>
<title id="l5">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l6">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 50 Qualifications for appointment</title>
<title id="l7">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 60 Protection of members, alternative dispute resolution practitioners, Registrars, District Registrars, Deputy Registrars, Conference Registrars, barristers and witnesses</title>
<title id="l8">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 61 Failure to comply with summons</title>
<title id="l9">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 63 Contempt of Tribunal</title>
<title id="l10">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 </title>
<title id="l11">DISABILITY SERVICES ACT 1986 </title>
<title id="l12">DISABILITY SERVICES ACT 1986 - SECT 18 Target group</title>
<title id="l13">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 50 Prohibition of publication of evidence etc.</title>
<title id="l15">FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 </title>
<title id="l16">FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 - SECT 24A Requests may be refused if documents cannot be found, do not exist or have not been received</title>
<title id="l17">FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 - SECT 54 Internal review--access refusal decision</title>
<title id="l18">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l19">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l20">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 75 Certain errors not to avoid conviction</title>
<title id="l21">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 80 Common law to govern</title>
<title id="l22">SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT 1984 </title>
<title id="l23">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l24">FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 No. 3 of 1982 - SECT 18 Access to documents to be given on request</title>
<title id="l25">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 596">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 596">whether native title application be struck out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 596">whether application complies with s 61 of the native title act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 596">whether authorisation requirements met</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 596">composition of claim group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 596">claim brought on behalf of families not larger group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 596">where claim group different from to those identified as descendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 596">whether group a "society" observing society laws</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 596">where more than one claim group in area</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 596">whether application complies with s 62 of the native title act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 596">competence of affidavit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 596">whether evidence of authorisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 596">whether area and boundaries identified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 596">whether amendments sufficient to overcome non-compliance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 596">whether delay to strike out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] FCA 596">alternatively whether application be stayed or dismissed under o 35 r 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] FCA 596">where non-compliance with orders and directions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 8">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 8">application by representative body to be joined as a party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 8">application for compensation application to be dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 8">authorisation of representative body to seek dismissal of compensation application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 8">compensation application dismissed for applicant's failure to progress ;</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 22">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 22">application to strike out native title claim under s 84c of the native title act 1993 (cth) or dismissed under o 20 r 2 of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 22">whether amendments to claim after 1998 resulted in substance in a fresh application such that the act as amended by the native title amendment act 1998 applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 22">principles applicable to transitional provisions native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 22">s 61</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 22">whether claim properly identifies the native title claim group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 22">list of group members inaccurate and incomplete</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 22">whether method of listing founded on ascertainable principles or criteria native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 22">s 62</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 22">authorisation ascribed to various disparate sources that predated fresh application and subsequent amended applications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 22">whether applicant authorised by all the persons in the native title claim group evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 22">s 135 of evidence act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 22">whether transcript of preservation evidence could be tendered</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l1">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 67 Overlapping native title determination applications</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 210">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 210">information for the purposes of s 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 210">whether the tribunal fell into jurisdictional error in rejecting what appeared to be corroborative evidence on the basis of on an earlier credibility finding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 210">duty of the tribunal to act judicially</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 210">whether the tribunal placed undue weight on particular pieces of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 210">whether the tribunal based its decision on illogical findings or inferences of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 286">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 286">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 286">no error disclosed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 286">whether want of logic is available as a ground of judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">reliance on 'country information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether tribunal can use such information in assessing credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether such information the sole basis for tribunal's findings as to credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">tribunal's duty to look at reasonably foreseeable future</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether subsequent developments can be relied on to vitiate tribunal's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether sufficient opportunity to deal with country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether tribunal biased</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">re the minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte durairajasingham  immigration law and administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee review tribunal decision refusing to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">application in original jurisdiction of high court for prerogative relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations and evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to consider all available inferences from evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether s 430(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth) required the tribunal to refer to evidence contrary to its findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether a breach of s 430(1) amounts to a jurisdictional error grounding prerogative relief.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">role of the high court under the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">extent of high court's jurisdiction to grant certiorari pursuant to s 75(v) of the constitution .</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 157 Criterion for criminal justice stay visas</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 474 Decisions under Act are final</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1658">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1658">novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1658">anticipation of specific chemical compound in an earlier broad claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1658">distinction between a general disclosure and a disclosure for novelty purposes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1658">application by third party to appear amicus curiae in an appeal from delegate of commissioner of patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1658">refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1658">applicant's appeal allowed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 34">kuligowski v metrobus  issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 34">whether decision of review officer under the workers' compensation and rehabilitation act 1981 (wa) ("the act") pt iiia div 3 is a final decision for the purposes of issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 34">application by employer under s 60 of the act disputing liability to pay compensation for injuries incurred at work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 34">review officer found that the worker's injury had "resolved"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 34">leave to institute proceedings under s 93d of the act for damages at common law refused on the grounds of issue estoppel.  issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 34">whether the issues arising in district court proceedings were the same issues decided by the review officer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 34">review officer's findings were ambiguous.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2002] FCA 230">* on page 2 of the page delete:</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 163">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 163">refrigerants and lubricant compositions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 163">parent application found to lack novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 163">amended divisional application subsequently accepted by delegate of commissioner for patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 163">whether delegate erred in rejecting claim of issue estoppel issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 163">whether finding that parent application lacked novelty necessarily encompassed finding that specific dependent claim within that application also lacked novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 163">whether issue in the later proceeding in which estoppel raised as a bar "the same issue" as that decided by judgment in earlier action</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FCAFC 163" id="cs0">91 As to Du Pont's contention, the primary judge held that there was no identity of any issue decided by Branson J and the Full Court on the one hand and any issue which falls for determination in relation to the opposition to the divisional on the other ( E I Du Pont De Nemours  Co v Imperial Chemical Industries PLC (2006) 70 IPR 274 ; [2006] FCA 1402). Consequently, his Honour held that there was no issue estoppel (at [29]). Du Pont maintains that Branson J's findings on novelty with respect to the 005 application give rise to an issue estoppel in the opposition to the divisional that goes to the novelty of the invention so far as claimed in what is now claim 1 (previously dependent claim 4 of the 005 application).
  4 Du Pont argued that ICI's Divisional Application should similarly be rejected, essentially on the basis of various issue estoppels which were said to arise out of the earlier opposition proceedings. Gyles J, dismissed Du Pont's application for injunctive relief, holding that there were no issue estoppels, as claimed. His Honour found that there was no identity between any issue decided by Branson J, or indeed by the Full Court, and any issue which fell for determination in relation to the proposed Divisional Application: E I Du Pont De Nemours  Co v Imperial Chemical Industries PLC (2006) 70 IPR 274 ; [2006] FCA 1402. Du Pont now appeals against his Honour's judgment and orders.
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">PATENTS ACT 1990 </title>
<title id="l1">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 49 Acceptance of patent request: standard patent</title>
<title id="l2">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 79B Divisional applications prior to grant of patent</title>
<title id="l3">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 158 Appeals</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1334">first schedule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1334">description of the determination area</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1334" id="cs0">In this case, the Court notes that the proposed consent determination does not contain express provisions for extinguishment by pastoral improvements and the land reasonably necessary for the operation of them, an issue made relevant by the decision of the Court in De Rose v South Australia (No 2) [2005] FCAFC 110 ; (2005) 145 FCR 290. However, the Court notes that the pastoral respondents to this proceeding have agreed to enter into the consent determination on the basis of an agreement with the applicant that a form of Indigenous land use agreement (body corporate agreement) (ILUA) under the provisions of Pt 2 , Div 3, Subdiv B of the Native Title Act will be executed upon or shortly after a determination and the vesting of native title in the Wyamba Aboriginal Corporation. A determination in this form was held to be appropriate by North J in Hunter v State of Western Australia [2009] FCA 654 , and I consider it also to be appropriate here. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS (ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER) ACT 2006 </title>
<title id="l1">FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l2">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l3">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 23C Confirmation of extinguishment of native title by previous exclusive possession acts of Commonwealth</title>
<title id="l4">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 47A Reserves etc. covered by claimant applications</title>
<title id="l5">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 47B Vacant Crown land covered by claimant applications</title>
<title id="l6">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 56 Determination whether native title to be held in trust</title>
<title id="l7">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 61 Native title and compensation applications</title>
<title id="l8">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 63 Reference of applications to Native Title Registrar</title>
<title id="l9">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 64 Amendment of applications</title>
<title id="l10">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 66 Notice of application</title>
<title id="l11">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 86B Referral of matters for mediation</title>
<title id="l12">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 87 Power of Federal Court if parties reach agreement</title>
<title id="l13">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 87A Power of Federal Court to make determination for part of an area</title>
<title id="l14">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 94A Order containing determination of native title</title>
<title id="l15">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 190 Keeping the Register</title>
<title id="l16">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 190A Registrar to consider claims</title>
<title id="l17">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 225 Determination of native title</title>
<title id="l18">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 251D Land or waters on which a public work is constructed, established or situated</title>
<title id="l19">TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l20">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l21">NATIVE TITLE (PRESCRIBED BODIES CORPORATE) REGULATIONS 1999 </title>
<title id="l22">NATIVE TITLE (PRESCRIBED BODIES CORPORATE) REGULATIONS 1999 - REG 3 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l23">AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION ACT 1989 </title>
<title id="l24">TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l25">TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l26">FISH RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ACT 1994 </title>
<title id="l27">MINING ACT 1978 </title>
<title id="l28">PEARLING ACT 1990 </title>
<title id="l29">PETROLEUM AND GEOTHERMAL ENERGY RESOURCES ACT 1967 </title>
<title id="l30">PETROLEUM PIPELINES ACT 1969 </title>
<title id="l31">TITLES (VALIDATION) AND NATIVE TITLE (EFFECT OF PAST ACTS) ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l32">TITLES (VALIDATION) AND NATIVE TITLE (EFFECT OF PAST ACTS) ACT 1995 - SECT 12J </title>
<title id="l33">TITLES (VALIDATION) AND NATIVE TITLE (EFFECT OF PAST ACTS) ACT 1995 - SECT 14 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] AATA 558">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] AATA 558">compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] AATA 558">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] AATA 558">claims previously made for compensation arising from employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] AATA 558">whether raising same substantive issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] AATA 558">relevance of principles of res judicata, estoppel, issue estoppel and ashun estoppel in proceedings of tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] AATA 558">whether application frivolous or vexatious</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] AATA 558">power of tribunal to limit evidence on matters canvassed in review of previous decisions and subject of extensive findings of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] AATA 558">application not dismissed but evidence restricted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 47">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 47">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 87">workers compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 87">safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 87">reviewable decisions of telstra as employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 87">original ailment prognosis of telstra subsequently reversed by telstra</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 87">whether original prognosis underpinning initial telstra decision enshrined or liable to be subjected to reconsideration in light of later medical evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 87">where legislation allows for progressive and evolving decision-making</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 595">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 595">jurisdiction of the administrative appeals tribunal ("aat")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 595">effect of aat's prior determination under commonwealth employees' rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 595">whether aat was functus officio</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 595">jurisdiction of federal court to award costs of a review of a decision under the act .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1990] FCA 153">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1990] FCA 153">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1990] FCA 153">review of determination of delegate of australian postal corporation made under commonwealth employees' rehabilitation compensation act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1990] FCA 153">operation of s.62(1) and s.127(2) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1990] FCA 153">whether the australian postal corporation may reconsider an entitlement to compensation which had earlier been the subject of a decision by the administrative appeals tribunal.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1990] FCA 153">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1990] FCA 153">nature of aat decisions.  administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth) s.43  commonwealth employees' rehabilitation act (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1990] FCA 153">ss.4, 60, 62, 101, 124, 127</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.21">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">grounds on which further appellate court will interfere with intermediate court's exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">tribunal review of decision of the defence force retirement and death benefits authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">defence force retirement and death benefits act 1973 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">invalidity pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">invalidity classification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">percentage incapacity for civil employment under s 34(1a)(a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">physical and mental impairment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">alcoholism</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">personality disorder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">whether error of law on part of tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">whether tribunal considered a serious submission regarding previous tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">whether tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">improvement of condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">range of civil employment available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">whether reasons of tribunal inadequate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">relevance of previous related decision of tribunal   held: tribunal erred in law in reaching its decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">failure to take into account serious submission regarding previous tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.18">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">failure to take into account relevant considerations regarding improvement of condition and range of civil employment available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.19">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">tribunal erred in only considering two of the nine employment types available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.20">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">reasons inadequate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.21">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.22">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">decision of the tribunal set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.23">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">matter remitted to tribunal for determination according to law</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 302" id="cs0">That this principle applies in relation to decisions of the Tribunal appears settled law: Comcare Australia v Grimes [1994] FCA 1054 at [24] , Cheung v AAT [2009] FCA 241 at [49] . In affirming the principle, the Full Court in Morales v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 334 ; (1998) 82 FCR 374 said at 390:
 In our view, the essentially administrative nature of the Tribunal's function and the nature of its task in looking to the correct or preferable decision, in circumstances where it is to have regard amongst other things to the dictates of fairness, point to the conclusion that the Tribunal may, in appropriate circumstances, conclude that a previous decision should be applied again as the correct and preferable decision when it is sought to revisit the earlier decision at some later time. Of course, the circumstance that a Court has set aside an entire decision may mean that it is either impermissible, or quite inappropriate, to adopt such a course but that would not necessarily be the case where, as here, a particular determination had not itself been the subject of challenge.

 In the present case, we think it was open to Purvis J, having considered all the relevant circumstances, to regard the previous decision of Mr McMahon as determinative of the s 501(2) issue and to decide that this issue should not be reopened. Of course, his Honour might have concluded that this course was not appropriate in the circumstances; but it was a matter of discretion and his Honour's reasons lead us to conclude that he did not see himself as having such discretion. In this respect there was an error of law.

 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 33 Procedure of Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 43 Tribunal's decision on review</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">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l5">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l6">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 60 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l7">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 62 Reconsideration of determinations</title>
<title id="l8">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 64 Applications to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 354">deputy commissioner of taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 354">claimantlynnette anne meredith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 354">opponent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 776">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 776">winding up in insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 776">service of statutory demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 776">statutory demand posted to company's registered office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 776">no facility there for receipt of postal articles, but company had box at post office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 776">company's arrangement with post office that postal articles addressed to the company would be deposited in company's post office box</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 776">evidence of company's business practice for its employee to collect mail from post office box and deliver it to company's registered office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 776">director's evidence that he did not receive statutory demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 776">whether evidence rebutted presumption as to time of service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 776">distinctions between service and time of service, and between delivery and receipt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 776">anomaly that "presumption" as to service is effected by posting, but presumption as to time of service rebuttable. held : (1) presumption as to time of service not rebutted on the evidence; (2) it does not rebut the presumption to prove that delivery to the registered office was effected by company's employee, rather than by australia post.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 914">veterans' entitlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 914">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 914">nature of appeal pursuant to s 44(1) of administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 914">appeals on a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 914">review under s 5 of the adjr act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 914">whether the tribunal misunderstood evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 914">'kind of death' of veteran under veterans' entitlements act 1986 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 914">whether denial of procedural fairness by tribunal in not accepting a submission put to it jointly by the parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 437">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 437">application for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 437">review of protection visa decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 437">time when applicant received notification of refugee review tribunal's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 437">consideration of evidentiary requirements for notification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 437">where unreasonable delay in responding to decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 437">application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 50">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 50">appeal under s44 of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 50">administrative appeals tribunal affirming decision of migration agents registration authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 50">whether notice of appeal complies with the requirements of order 53 rule 3 of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 50">what constitutes a question of law administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 50">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 50">review of decision of migration agents registration authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 50">suspension of migration agent's registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 50">breach of code of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 50">whether response to notice of intention to cancel business visa is an "application"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 50">whether alleged question of law assumed particular construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 50">relevance of alleged recommendation by conduct advisory panel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 50">whether consideration of the recommendation a question of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 50">whether adequate reasons given</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2004] FCA 50">whether the reasoning process for reaching conclusions and findings of material questions of fact was exposed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2004] FCA 50">level of satisfaction required for finding breach of code of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 24">samuel capper v andrew thorpe  real property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 24">notices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 24">default notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 24">service by post</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 24">contract deeming notice to be served 48 hours after posting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 24">whether consistent with legislative provisions as to notice.  real property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 24">notices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 24">default notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 24">service by post</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 24">"served on the purchaser in writing"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 24">whether service effected upon receipt of a postal notice advising that an article awaits collection.  real property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1998] HCA 24">notices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1998] HCA 24">default notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[1998] HCA 24">whether receipt of a copy of notice amounts to service.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[1998] HCA 24">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[1998] HCA 24">intention of the legislature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[1998] HCA 24">use of legislative debates.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">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="cp7.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1990] FCA 417">veterans' affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1990] FCA 417">repatriation legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1990] FCA 417">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1990] FCA 417">whether personal service is necessary of the decision of the repatriation commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1990] FCA 417">whether ss. 28a and 29 acts interpretations act 1901 apply.  judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1990] FCA 417">whether an extension of time should be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1990] FCA 417">delay caused by the mistaken view of departmental officers that appeal lay to the administrative appeals tribunal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">company shareholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">recoupment tax legislation vendors recoupment tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">dispensing authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">taxation (unpai company tax) assessment act 1982 sub-s.5(4)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">"unreasonable that the primary taxable amount should be taken to exist"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">nature and width of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">factors personal to taxpayer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">age</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">condition of life</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">commercial sophistication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">reliance upon professional advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">object in entering share sale transaction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">ignorance of fraudulent aspects</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">extent of benefit derived</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">appeals to aat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">principles regulating functions on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.18">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">exercise of dispensing discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.19">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">jurisdiction of court on appeal from aat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.20">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.21">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">principles governing exercise of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.22">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">restraint</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.23">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">company operating modest family farm</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.24">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">elderly parents and son shareholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.25">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">restructuring of business to divide between father and son</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.26">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">disposal of stock to father and son trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.27">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">deemed profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.28">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">sale of shares in company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.29">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">professional advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.30">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">outstanding liability for ordinary company tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.31">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">tax imposed after sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.32">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">shareholders innocent of fraudulent purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.33">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">share sale incidental to restructuring.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.34">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.35">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">review of administrative decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.36">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">exercise of administrative discretions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.37">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">principle regulating review and exercise of discretion by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.38">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">approach to administrative policies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.39">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">taxation rulings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.40">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">dispensing authority under sub-s.5(4) of tucta act 1982</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.41">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">taxation ruling it2063</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.42">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">appeal to federal court on question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.43">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">jurisdiction of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.44">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">principles governing exercise of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.45">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">restraint.  high court and federal judiciary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.46">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">federal court of australia original jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.47">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">appeals under s.44(1) of administrative appeals tribunal act 1975</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.48">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.49">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">principles governing exercise of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.50">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">restraint.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.51">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.52">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">taxing statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.53">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">dispensing authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.54">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">broad discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.55">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">by reference to what commissioner considers "unreasonable"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.56">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">limiting criteria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.57">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">scope and purpose of legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.58">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">dispensing authority as element of statutory purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.59">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">limited scope for judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.60">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">taxation (unpaid company tax) assessment act 1982</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.61">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">sub-s.5(4).  words, phrases and maxims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.62">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">"considers it unreasonable" "unreasonable".  stone's human law and human justice 1965 at 301  income tax assessment act 1936 s,260  taxation (unpaid company tax) assessment act 1982 s.3(1) , s. 8 , sub-s.5(4)  taxation boards of review (transfer of jurisdiction) act 1986  crimes (taxation offences) act 1980  administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 s.44 , sub-s.43(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1981] FCA 171">social services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1981] FCA 171">appeal from a decision of administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1981] FCA 171">cancellation of supporting parents benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1981] FCA 171">interpretation of "supporting mother" and "living with a man as his wife on a bona fide domestic basis"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1981] FCA 171">whether financial support is one of a series of factors or the crucial factor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1981] FCA 171">qualification for acceptance a pre-requisite to determination of need</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1981] FCA 171">scheme and purpose of social services act.  social services act 1947 s.15, part iv aaa, s.83 aaa order 53 rule 4 of rules of federal court.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1981] FCA 171">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1981] FCA 171">"supporting parent"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1981] FCA 171">"living with . . . a man as his wife on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to him"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1981] FCA 171">whether financial support crucial factor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[1981] FCA 171">whether all facets of relationship to be taken into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[1981] FCA 171">scheme and purpose of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[1981] FCA 171">social services act 1947 (cth), s. 83aaa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[1981] FCA 171">federal court rules , o. 53, r. 4. the appellant was a single mother of two children who were in her custody, care and control. a supporting parent's benefit was being paid to her until about 19th july, 1979, by the commonwealth department of social security. on that date an officer of the department decided to suspend the payment of the supporting parent's benefit because he believed that the appellant had been living with a mr. f. and that mr. f. had paid the appellant twenty dollars per fortnight for the support of one of the children.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">customs and excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">customs duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">importation of vehicles having the characteristics of tractors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">whether vehicles "tractors" as defined in tariff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">if so, whether they were derivatives of "agricultural tractors" as defined therein</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">whether it was open to the tribunal as the tribunal of fact to conclude that the vehicles were "lifting machinery" within the tariff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">consideration of the question of whether the vehicles were imported in an incomplete or unfinished state and, if so, had the essential character of lifting machinery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">observations on what amounts to a question of law and the circumstances in which the court will interfere with the decision of an administrative tribunal whose decisions on questions of fact are final</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">customs tariff 1966, paragraphs 84.23.311 and 84.22.521 of part ii of first schedule, interpretative rule 2(1)(a) and notes 2 and 7 to chapter 87 of part ii of first schedule.  customs and excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">duty on imported vehicles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">whether lifting machinery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">whether incomplete or unfinished state having essential characteristics of lifting machinery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">whether derivatives of agricultural tractors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">decisions of administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">whether questions of law raised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">"derivative"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.17">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">"essential character"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.18">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">"hauling"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.19">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">customs tariff 1966. first schedule, pt i interpretative r. 2 (1) (a); pt ii pars. 84.23.311, 84.22.521, 87.01.31; pt ii ch. 87 notes 2, 7</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.20">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth), s. 44. the applicant appealed to the administrative appeals tribunal against the assessment by the respondent of the customs duty payable in respect of four vehicles it had imported. the tribunal decided that the vehicles were properly classified under par. 84.22.521 of the customs tariff 1966. item 84.22 referred to "lifting, handling, loading or unloading machinery", par. 84.22.52 referred to "other machinery . . ." and par. 84.22.521 referred to machinery within par. 84.22.52 which did not have a working weight of more than fifty tonnes. the tribunal in reaching those decisions applied interpretative r. 2 (1) (a) of the customs tariff to conclude that the vehicles were imported in an incomplete or unfinished state but had the essential character of goods described in par. 84.22.521. the applicant contended that the vehicles came within par. 87.01.31 of the tariff which referred to: "agricultural wheeled tractors and other wheeled tractors that are derivatives of agricultural tractors."  on appeal.  held: per curiam</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.21">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">(1) the appeal being limited to a question of law pursuant to s. 44 of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 , the applicant had to demonstrate that the evidence was such that the vehicles must fall within the words of the paragraph it relied on. currie v. commissioners of inland revenue, (1921) 2 kb 332 ; lombardo v. federal commissioner of taxation [1979] fca 66 ; (1979), 40 flr 208 , referred to.  per fisher j.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.22">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">quaere whether any decision of an administrative body such as the tribunal can be said to involve a question of law because it is based on insufficient evidence.  federal commissioner of taxation v. miller [1946] hca 23 ; (1946), 73 clr 93 , referred to.  (2) the vehicles did not fall within par. 87.01.31 of the tariff because:  per smithers j.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.23">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">they were not constructed essentially for hauling or pushing within the meaning given to "tractor" by note 2 to ch. 87. the vehicles were a derivative of an agricultural tractor within the meaning of par. 87.01.31.  per fisher and sheppard jj.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.24">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">the vehicles had not been developed from an actual existing agricultural tractor, it being insufficient that the vehicles were modelled upon something which in former times was an agricultural tractor or part thereof.  (3) per fisher and sheppard jj., smithers j. dissenting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.25">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">on the evidence taking into account the intrinsic nature of the vehicles themselves at the date of importation, it was open to the tribunal to conclude that the vehicles were imported in an incomplete state and had the essential character of lifting machinery.  per smithers j.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.26">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">the machines were incomplete in so significant a respect that within the meaning of interpretative r. 2 (1) (a) they could not be said to have the essential character of lifting machinery and the tribunal's decision to the contrary involved an error of law. (4) appeal dismissed.  hearing  sydney, 1980, february 21-22; august 22. 22:8:1980</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l3">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 28A Service of documents</title>
<title id="l4">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 29 Meaning of service by post</title>
<title id="l5">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l6">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 5 Extended application of certain provisions</title>
<title id="l7">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 160 Postal articles</title>
<title id="l8">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 163 Proof of letters having been sent by Commonwealth agencies</title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 441A Methods by which Tribunal gives documents to a person other than the Secretary</title>
<title id="l11">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 </title>
<title id="l12">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 155AA Power to dismiss application--initial consideration</title>
<title id="l13">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] AATA 864">social security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] AATA 864">disability support pension (dsp)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] AATA 864">applicant suffers from profound congenital deafness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] AATA 864">applicant granted dsp in 1996 when 16 years of age</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2004] AATA 864">applicant's dsp cancelled on 7 november 2002</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2004] AATA 864">applicant has physical impairment of 60 points under impairment tables</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2004] AATA 864">applicant's impairment of itself insufficient to prevent her from doing any work within next 2 years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2004] AATA 864">applicant does not have continuing inability to work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2004] AATA 864">decision affirmed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1993] AATA 283">social security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1993] AATA 283">disability support pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1993] AATA 283">whether applicant has at least 20% impairment under impairment tables</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1993] AATA 283">whether applicant has a "continuing inability to work".  words and phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1993] AATA 283">"continuing inability to work".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">purchase of business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">"assumption" by purchaser of liability of vendor for or on account of annual leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether employees to be "taken over" by purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether derivation by purchaser of income in the sum of that liability in circumstances of the case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether gain constituted income according to ordinary concepts or whether amount had been received by way of insurance or indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">income tax assessment act 1936 , ss. 25, 26 (j).  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether appeal to the federal court from the administrative appeals tribunal an appeal on "question of law"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">administrative appeals tribunal act 1977, s. 44.  federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">"matter" within meaning of chapter iii of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether s. 44 of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1977 confers jurisdiction with respect to a "matter"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">the content of that matter.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2011] AATA 230">social security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2011] AATA 230">disability support pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2011] AATA 230">applicant's dsp cancelled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2011] AATA 230">cancellation decision affirmed by succession of decision-makers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2011] AATA 230">applicant's fresh claim for dsp granted and payment commenced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2011] AATA 230">whether tribunal had power to backdate dsp to date of original cancellation decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2011] AATA 230">whether applicant made incorrect claim for newstart allowance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2011] AATA 230">whether applicant incapacitated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2011] AATA 230">tribunal lacked power to disturb decisions of previous decision-makers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">citing from="[2011] AATA 230">decision under review affirmed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 360">social security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 360">consideration of an application by the secretary of the department to set aside a decision of the administrative appeals tribunal on the footing that the tribunal had applied an incorrect test for the determination of a person's "continuing inability to work" under s 94(1)(c) of the social security act 1991 (cth) as provided for by s 94(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 360">consideration of when an impairment is "of itself" sufficient to prevent a person from "doing any work" independently of a program of support</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 360">consideration of the extent to which the test takes account of the employability of the impaired person and whether the relevant market is an open labour market for impaired persons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 360">consideration of the authorities relating to that question in the historical context of the development of the social security legislation of the commonwealth  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 360">consideration of questions of law going to whether the tribunal failed to identify the correct statutory question to be applied in determining a continuing inability to work for the purposes of the social security act 1991 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 360">consideration of whether findings on the part of the tribunal were open on the evidence</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] AATA 230" id="cs0">Mr Croker was granted DSP in March 1994. In September 2005, the Secretary decided to cancel Mr Croker's DSP but continued payments until 6 June 2006 pending review of that decision. The cancellation decision was affirmed by the SSAT and on 13 April 2007, by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal: Croker and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1224. Mr Croker was unsuccessful in his appeal to the Federal Court: Croker v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 1635. Mr Croker's appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court has been stayed until such time as he lodges security for the respondent's costs: Croker v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (No. 2) [2008] FCA 340. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] NSWSC 942" id="cs1">119 In April 2007 the AAT dismissed the defendant's appeal against the SSAT's decision to revoke his disability pension. The AAT reaffirmed the decision of the SSAT ( Croker v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1224). While this is not relied upon as a vexatious proceeding, in October 2007 the defendant appealed to the Federal Court from the decision of the AAT, proceedings which the plaintiff does rely upon. Branson J dismissed the appeal ( Croker v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 1635). In March 2008 Emmett J dismissed the defendant's appeal from the order of Branson J dismissing the appeal from the AAT, and stayed the proceedings until the defendant provided security for costs in the sum of $3000 ( Croker v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2008] FCA 340).

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 360" id="cs2">In Croker v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 1635 , the applicant contended that the Tribunal ought not to have considered types of employment which were insufficiently intellectually challenging for him or which were of insufficient status, in his view. Branson J dismissed that contention at [27] in these terms:

 I am willing for present purposes to assume (I do not so find) that the language of the definition of "work" in s 94(5) admits of some qualification of the usual broad meaning of the word "work" (but see [ Crossland ]). However, I do not accept that the Act discloses an intention that a person with tertiary qualifications is to be regarded as a person with a continuing inability to work, and thus a person entitled to taxpayer-funded DSP, just because the person's impairment prevents him or her from undertaking professional or other high status employment. A person able to do work of a character undertaken by a very large number of Australian taxpayers (ie. customer service, call-centre or light retail work) is not, in my view, a person with a continuing inability to work within the meaning of the Act.

 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l3">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 94 Qualification for disability support pension</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>