Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">whether court should exercise discretion to allow commission to argue a new point relating to the application of ss 46(1)(c) and 46 (2) of the acts interpretation act 1901 (cth) to competition notice the subject of telstra corporation limited v australian competition and consumer commission (no 2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">factors relevant to discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">utility in considering competition notice in light of s 46 limited</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">whether discretionary factors should be approached differently where party is a government agency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">questions of discretion should not be disregarded because commission is a government agency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">not in interests of justice to re-open case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">factors raised for exercise of discretion not sufficient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">uncertainty and prejudice to applicant as a consequence of raising new issue in circumstances where competition notice has been revoked</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">remaining issue as to whether mandatory to apply s 46  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">commission not entitled to issue competition notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">proposed redacted competition notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">a part a competition notice is an instrument for the purposes of s 46 of the acts interpretation act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">s 46 does not apply to the decision to issue the competition notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">decision to issue notice invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">s 46 does not apply where instrument was intended to operate fully</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">contrary intention evident that the commission is not entitled to make substantive changes to the competition notice by applying s 46</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">if s 46 were to apply whether competition notice could be read down or severed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">whether s 46(1)(c) applies to the competition notice requiring it to be read so that it is valid to the extent it is within power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">competition notice invalid in entirety and cannot be read down proposed alternative construction not available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">whether s 46(2) applies to the competition notice requiring parts to be severed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">severance not appropriate trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">section 151aka of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) not concerned with the decision to issue a part a competition notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">declaration under s 163a applies to validity of an act or thing done under the act and not to a decision to do an act or thing  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">applicant seeks declaration of invalidity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">s 16(1)(a) of administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) does not provide for declarations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">s 16(1)(c) of administrative decisions (judicial review) act provides for a declaration in respect of a matter to which the decision relates not the decision itself</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">applicant seeks order under s 16(1)(a) quashing decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.28">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">no evidence concerning decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.29">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">no consideration of decision-making process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.30">cited from="[2007] FCA 1905">decision not quashed but set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 164">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 164">termination of service in the australian defence force</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 164">judicial review of termination decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 164">termination decision made without prior notice of refusal of extension of time to submit additional material in opposition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 164">no breach of natural justice shown  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 164">judicial review of termination decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 164">relevant consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 164">failure to consider an investigator's report into soldier's service with battalion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 164">failure to comply with defence instructions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 164">investigator's report made after notice of proposed termination and before termination decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 164">change in circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 164">relevant consideration not so insignificant that could not have materially affected the termination decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">east australian pipeline pty limited v australian competition and consumer commission  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">third party access regime for natural gas pipelines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">east australian pipeline pty limited ("eapl") owned a natural gas pipeline which was a covered pipeline under the national third party access code for natural gas pipeline systems ("the code")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">eapl was required to submit to the australian competition and consumer commission ("the accc") an access arrangement for use of the pipeline by third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">accc rejected eapl's proposed access arrangement and adopted its own access arrangement incorporating a reference tariff based on a lower initial capital base ("icb") than that proposed by eapl</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">accc arrived at an icb in a novel fashion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">section 8.10 of the code sets out a number of factors which are to be considered in establishing the icb for an existing pipeline</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">proper construction of s 8.10 of the code</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">whether s 8.10 of the code permits a novel asset valuation methodology.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">administrative review of a regulatory decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">australian competition tribunal ("the tribunal") varied the determination by the accc substituting a new icb</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">grounds for review included a ground that "the exercise of the relevant regulator's discretion was incorrect or unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">nature and scope of the tribunal's jurisdiction to review decision of the accc.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">judicial review of the outcome of an administrative review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">full court of the federal court set side the tribunal's determination of the icb -whether error of law within the meaning of s 5(1)(f) of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">whether there was jurisdictional error attracting the federal court's jurisdiction under s 39b(1) of the judiciary act 1903 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 42">insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 42">accident and sickness insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 42">reopening of case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 42">insurance contracts act 1984 (cth), s 57 provides for interest on amounts withheld by an insurer from time unreasonably to have withheld until payment, to the exclusion of any other law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 42">when was it unreasonable for insurer to have withheld</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 42">whether compound interest appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 42">appropriate calculation of interest under the insurance contracts regulations (cth), reg 32</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">szbel v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">protection visa decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant claimed he feared persecution on basis of his conversion to christianity if returned to iran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">delegate of the first respondent refused to grant appellant protection visa because not satisfied of the genuineness of appellant's conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">review by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant invited by tribunal to give evidence relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant gave evidence addressed to the delegate's concern regarding the genuineness of his conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa on the basis that appellant's claims were not credible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether tribunal failed to notify the appellant adequately of the issues to which its reasoning processes were directed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether failure of tribunal to ask the appellant to address issues that it considered might be important amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 22">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 22">application to reopen</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 22">discretionary factors militating for and against reopening</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 22">parties proceeded on an understanding that the applicants would not adduce evidence on quantification of loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 22">interest in finality of litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 22">whether applicants made an election between alternative rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 22">application to reopen refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">applicant veal of 2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal reviewed an unsolicited letter received by the department of immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs, which made allegations against the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal did not inform the appellant of the existence of the letter or its contents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal affirmed decision under review and said that in reaching its decision it gave no weight to the letter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">whether procedural fairness required the tribunal to inform the appellant of the existence of the letter or its contents.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 310">environment and planning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 310">decision of commissioner of land and environment court granting development consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 310">earlier decision by different commissioner refusing similar application in relation to neighbouring property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 310">no reference to earlier decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 310">whether commissioner bound to follow earlier decision  appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 310">error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 310">duty to make findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 310">judicial comity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 310">relevance of practice of judge at first instance following earlier decision of judge of co-ordinate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 310">duty to give reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 310">principal contested issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 310">whether commissioner's failure to refer to earlier decision constituted an error of law  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 310">relevance of principle of consistency in administrative decision-making</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 849">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 849">determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 849">formulation of determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 849">whether separate and overlapping determinations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 849">whether more than one prescribed body corporate permissible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 849">how native title holders to be described</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 849">miscellaneous other issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">certiorari , prohibition, mandamus , declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">third party access to natural gas pipeline</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">assessment for approval by regulator of proposed access arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">whether regulator misconceived duty and failed to perform statutory function</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">whether regulator misconstrued access code, failed to consider relevant matters, considered irrelevant matters, made findings unsupported by evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">declaratory relief grantedadministrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">"draft decision"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">detailed statutory stages for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">whether application premature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">whether rights sufficiently affectedstatutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">tariff for use of gas pipeline by third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">owner purchased pipeline before access code applied to pipeline</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">pipeline purchased from state agency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">purchase by public tender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">whether purchase price relevant to establishment of capital base for calculation of tariff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">national third party access code, 1997, s 2.24(a), s 8.1, s 8.10 and s 8.11statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.18">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">regulator "must take" into account several factors including owner's "legitimate business interests and investment" in pipeline</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.19">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">whether factors must be given weight as fundamental elements in decision whether to approve</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.20">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">national third party access code, 1997, s 2.24statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.21">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">access code stipulates factors to be taken into account by regulator in assessing whether access arrangement satisfies principles in s 3.1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.22">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">s 3.20</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.23">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">by s 3.4 compliance with principles in s8 required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.24">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">whether stipulated factors to be taken into account in assessing compliance with s 8</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.25">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">whether s 8 self-contained "code"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.26">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">national third party access code, 1997, s 2.24, s 3.4, s 8statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.27">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">design of tariff for use of gas pipeline by third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.28">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">statutory objective that "efficient" costs be recovered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.29">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">whether imports notion of "economic efficiency"statutory objective of "not distorting investment decisions" in pipeline systems</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.30">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">whether includes investments made before access code applied to a pipeline</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.31">cited from="[2002] WASCA 231">national third party access code, 1997, s 8.1(a), s 8.1(d)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">re refugee review tribunal; ex parte aala  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">failure to afford procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">prosecutor denied opportunity to be heard on matters affecting credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prosecutor denied possibility of a successful outcome.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">nature of constitutional writ of prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">availability of writ of prohibition for failure to accord procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prohibition available as of right or by discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether application should be rejected due to delay.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">construction of constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">meaning to be given to words in s 75(v)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">relevance of meaning at time of commencement of constitution .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">application to set aside minister's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">aboriginal and torres strait islander heritage protection act 1984</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">declaration made under s10</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">whether excluded by statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">nature of interest to be protected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">nature of process under heritage protection act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">legitimate expectations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">whether urgency justifies departure from natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">delay of decision-maker's own making</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">opportunity to respond to further information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">whether information new</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">whether prejudice necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">credibility of representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.17">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">whether minister considered representations   aborigines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.18">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">aboriginal and torres strait islander heritage protection act 1984</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.19">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">sacred sites</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.20">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">minister's decision to prohibit construction activities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.21">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">proposed crocodile farm</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.22">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">whether minister considered representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.23">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">confidential information   evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.24">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.25">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">s13 reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.26">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">weight to be given</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.27">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">absence of other evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.28">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">inference to be drawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.29">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">application of rule in jones v dunkel to judicial review proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.30">cited from="[1996] FCA 1509">failure of minister to call evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">discretionary power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">right to be heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">requirement of procedural fairness in initial licence grant process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">distinction between initial grant and renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">evaluation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether evaluation based upon materials supplied by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">need to identify critical issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">third party materials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">opportunity to rebutt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">consistent with admissions by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">improper exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether fettered by rule of policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.15">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether evidence of rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.16">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">refusal of licence to retail "x" videos</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.17">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">revenue raising statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.18">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">fit and proper person requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.19">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">applicant trading in breach of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.20">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether applicant not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">citizenship immigration and emigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">entry permits and change of status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">determination as to refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">refugee sur place</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">requirement of bona fides.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">rules of natural justice and breach thereof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">right of party affected to be heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">nature of hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">adverse conclusions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">circumstances in which party affected to be apprised so that he may respond.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">decision of administrative character made under enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct engaged in for purpose of making decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">review of decisions and conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">ambit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 3 , 5 , 6 .  broadcasting and television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">commercial broadcasting licences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">australian broadcasting tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">power to suspend or revoke licence if satisfied that licensee no longer fit and proper person to hold licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">controller of licensee not fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">whether licensee fit and proper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct before commencement of licence period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">broadcasting act 1942 (cth), s. 88.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1988] FCA 423">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1988] FCA 423">health insurance act 1973</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1988] FCA 423">determination by the minister that new pathology services table be substituted in schedule 1a of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1988] FCA 423">whether statutory preconditions to such determination had been complied with</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1988] FCA 423">whether determination void</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1988] FCA 423">ss. 4a , 4bc , 78c of the act.  judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1988] FCA 423">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1988] FCA 423">decisions to which the act applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1988] FCA 423">whether above determination of the minister was of administrative or legislative character.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1988] FCA 423">separation of powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1988] FCA 423">distinction between exercise of legislative and executive powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1988] FCA 423">delegation of legislative power.  judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[1988] FCA 423">rules of natural justice or procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[1988] FCA 423">whether applicable to decisions of a legislative not administrative character.  federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">cited from="[1988] FCA 423">judiciary act 1903 , s. 39b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.15">cited from="[1988] FCA 423">whether declaratory relief available under s. 21 of federal court of australia act 1976 in matters where jurisdiction attracted by s. 39b but no relief appropriate thereunder.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">new trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">denial of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">submission that evidence of witness should not be accepted stopped by judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">evidence accepted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">whether new trial should be granted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.21">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">grounds on which further appellate court will interfere with intermediate court's exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">immigration and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">power of minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">principles of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">standing as australian citizen of infant daughter of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">intended deportation order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether notice required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">migration act 1958 (cth), ss. 6 , 6a, 7 , 18 .  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.9">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.10">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.11">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.12">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">order for deportation of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.13">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">review of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.14">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 5 , 13 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">application for permanent residence in australia by spouse of person having permanent resident status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">validity of decision to refuse application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">failure of minister to take into account relevant material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">unreasonableness of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">ambit of material relevant for consideration in determining reasonableness.  migration act 1958 ss. 6 , 6a  administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 s.5  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">immigration and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.10">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">review of minister's decision refusing an application for a permanent entry permit to australia, spouse having permanent resident status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.11">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">whether minister had failed to take into account relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.12">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">whether exercise of power was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.13">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">taking of further evidence to adduce facts not before the minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.14">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss 5(1)(e) , 5 (2), 5 (2)(a), 5 (2)(b), 5 (2)(f), 5 (2)(g), 6 (2), 13</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.15">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">migration act 1958 (cth), ss 6 , 6a. in an application for review of a decision of the minister for immigration and ethnic affairs made in 1984 refusing an application for a permanent entry permit to an applicant who was the spouse of a permanent resident on the basis that the applicant's marriage had been assessed as being one where the parties did not genuinely intend to continue living as a married couple in australia, it being the minister's policy to refuse permanent entry permits in such cases.  held: (1) that relevant considerations which should have been taken into account were not, thus making the minister's decision invalid pursuant to s 5(2)(b) of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (the act), such considerations being:  (i) a report made in 1981 by an interviewing officer in suva expressing an opinion that the marriage relationship was genuine, such report being part of the history of the relationship, all of which was relevant in determining the quality of the marriage as at the date of the minister deciding the application. although the report was not presented to the minister, it was on the departmental file and was accordingly to be regarded as being constructively before him.  peko-wallsend ltd v. minister for aboriginal affairs (1985) 59 alr 51 , referred to.  (ii) statutory declarations of neighbours and acquaintances as to the applicant leading a normal married life and a letter of a social worker as to the applicant's wife living at home with the applicant, such documents being available to the minister, but there being nothing to indicate that he had taken any account of them.  (2) that in determining whether an administrative decision made under statutory authority falls within s 5(2)(g) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.16">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">(a) the court should construe that paragraph in the light of the common law principle of which that paragraph is a legislative enactment, that principle being stated by lord diplock in bromley london borough city council v. greater london council (1983) 1 ac 768 to be the invalidation of administrative decisions "that looked at objectively are so devoid of any plausible justification that no reasonable body of persons could have reached them" and by menzies j in parramatta city council v. pestell [1972] hca 59 ; (1972) 128 clr 305 to be the invalidation of an administrative decision "based on an opinion which could not be justified on any reasonable grounds".  perkins v. cuthill [1981] fca 44 ; (1981) 34 alr 669 ; plegas v. mccabe (unreported, federal court of australia, lockhart j, 3 august 1984; willara pty ltd v. mcveigh (1984) 54 alr 65 ; re w (an infant) (1971) ac 682 ; associated provincial picture houses v. wednesbury corporation [1947] ewca civ 1 ; (1948) 1 kb 223 ; secretary of state for education and science v. tameside metropolitan borough council [1976] ukhl 6 ; (1977) ac 1014 ; borkovic v. minister for immigration and ethnic affairs (1981) 39 alr 186 ; hamblin v. duffy [1981] fca 38 ; (1981) 50 flr 308 ; mixnam's properties ltd v. chertsey urban district council (1964) 1 qb 214 , referred to.  (b) the court is entitled to consider those facts which were known to the decision-maker actually or constructively together only with such additional facts as the decision-maker would have learned but for any unreasonable conduct by him where such facts are obtainable from material that is readily available.  (3) that, having taken further evidence relating to the matters arising out of the interviews by the departmental officer, and having reviewed and analysed the evidence and the manner in which the decision was reached by the minister, and bearing in mind the strength of the case required before it may be said that a decision falls within s 5(2)(g) of the act, the minister's decision was "devoid of any plausible justification" and that it accordingly be set aside pursuant to that paragraph of the act and the matter remitted to the minister for further consideration. in reaching this decision the court took into account, inter alia, the following matters:  (i) the existence of the statutory declarations and the social worker's letter asserting that there was a normal marriage relationship, the declarants and writer thereof being apparently credible and independent and such documents asserting a conclusion contrary to that formed by the minister and the fact that the minister had not further investigated the statements contained in those documents as he ought to have done.  (ii) that the only matters tending to show lack of intention to live together were the circumstances of the marriage four years earlier and more importantly, interviews by a departmental officer of the applicant and his wife, such interviews containing inconsistencies in their recollection of details in their daily lives, the minister believing that such inconsistencies indicated that the wife did not live with her husband. the interviewing officer should have given the applicant an opportunity to deal with those matters which excited an adverse reaction in the officer before permitting those matters to be used in a manner adverse to the applicant in the decision-making process.  (iii) the interviews which were relied upon by the minister as the primary method of determining the genuineness of the relationship were rushed and short and in any case, neither a verbatim record nor at least contemporaneous notes of the interviews were made and kept, as ought to have been done.  hearing  sydney, 1985, february 5-6, 26.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">real property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">grazing licence granted pursuant to statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">not assignable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">terminable on notice by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">whether estate or interest in land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">whether profit a prendre</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">crown lands act 1931 (n.t.), s. 107(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">crown land regulations (n.t.), regs. 70, 71, 71a.  aboriginal lands</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">traditional land claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">unalienated crown land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">application to aboriginal land commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">report</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.12">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.13">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">comment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.14">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1970 (cth), s. 50.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.15">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.16">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">commissioner to ascertain whether aboriginals traditional owners of land and if so to recommend grant of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.17">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">findings to be reported to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.18">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">requirement to have regard to various matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.19">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">requirement to comment on other matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.20">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">whether in deciding whether to recommend grant commissioner bound to have regard to matters for comment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.21">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976 (cth), s. 50.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">cited from="[1981] FCA 41">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">cited from="[1981] FCA 41">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">cited from="[1981] FCA 41">whether appeal on question of law.  administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth.) s.44  migration act 1958 (cth.) s.12.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">cited from="[1981] FCA 41">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">cited from="[1981] FCA 41">whether appeal on question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">cited from="[1981] FCA 41">function of federal court on appeal from tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">cited from="[1981] FCA 41">migration act 1958 (cth), s. 12</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">cited from="[1981] FCA 41">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth), s. 44. the appellant was an alien who was sentenced to six years' imprisonment for drug offences. after his release the minister for immigration ordered that he be deported, and the appellant applied to the administrative appeals tribunal for review of the deportation order. the tribunal affirmed the decision of the minister, and the appellant appealed to the federal court against the decision of the tribunal.  section 44 of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 enables an appeal from the tribunal to the federal court only on a question of law. the appellant contended that the tribunal erred in law by placing too much weight on government policy and thereby abrogated its function of independently reviewing the minister's decision.  held: per deane j.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">cited from="[1981] FCA 41">(1) the court's function on such an appeal is not to review the decisions of the minister, or the tribunal, upon their respective merits; but to determine on the material before it whether the decision involved an error of law.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">broadcasting and television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">licence for commercial television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">prescribed interest held by company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">acquisition of shares by another company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">inquiry by australian broadcasting tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">duty to investigate matters relevant to inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">contraventions of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">acquisition of beneficial entitlement to prescribed interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.8">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">broadcasting and television act 1942 (cth), ss. 25, 91, 91a, 92 (1) (a), (2), (3) (a), 92f.  administrative bodies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.9">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">broadcasting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.10">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">supervisory authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.11">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.12">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.13">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">duty to investigate matters relevant to inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.14">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">duty to summon evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.15">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">cross-examination of witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.16">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">broadcasting and television act 1942 (cth), ss. 16 (1) (c), 25, 92f (4), (4a), 106a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">cited from="[1966] HCA 69">defence (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">cited from="[1966] HCA 69">national service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">cited from="[1966] HCA 69">conscientious objector</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">cited from="[1966] HCA 69">unsuccessful application for exemption from liability to render service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">cited from="[1966] HCA 69">unsuccessful appeal to court of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">cited from="[1966] HCA 69">whether court of review exceeded jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">cited from="[1966] HCA 69">whether error of law appearing on face of the record of the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.7">cited from="[1966] HCA 69">whether prohibition and certiorari available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.8">cited from="[1966] HCA 69">national service act 1951-1965 (cth), ss. 25, 29-29d.  prerogative writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.9">cited from="[1966] HCA 69">prohibition and certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.10">cited from="[1966] HCA 69">alleged excess of jurisdiction and error of law, on face of the record of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.11">cited from="[1966] HCA 69">circumstances in which writs available.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">collision between motor vehicles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">no direct evidence of negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">matter of inference from proved facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">sufficiency of facts to support inference.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.6">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">direction to jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.7">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">inference of negligence open on proved circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.8">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">whether inference should be drawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.9">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">defendant able to explain facts from which inference sought to be drawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.10">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">failure of defendant to give evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.11">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">what reliance to be placed by jury on such failure in deciding whether or not to draw inference</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.12">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">nature of direction to jury.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.13">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">non-suit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.14">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">verdict by direction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.15">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">history</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.16">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">application in new south wales.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 408">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 408">review of decision of a delegate of the minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 408">minister conceded jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 408">whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant the relief sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 408">visitor visa and protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 408">bad faith and "unclean hands"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 408">application to have the matter re-open</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.7">citing from="[2011] FMCA 408">relief not granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.8">citing from="[2011] FMCA 408">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">citing from="[2011] WASC 129">succession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">citing from="[2011] WASC 129">inheritance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">citing from="[2011] WASC 129">adequate provision for proper maintenance, support, education or advancement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">citing from="[2011] WASC 129">application by grandchild of testator under s 7(1)(d) of the inheritance (family and dependants provision) act 1972 (wa)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">citing from="[2011] WASC 129">competing need and moral claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1140">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1140">administrator's application for directions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1140">hearing completed but no orders entered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1140">application to reopen</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1140">when granted  estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1140">estoppel by representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 917">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 917">misleading or deceptive conduct  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 917">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 917">jones v dunkel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 917">browne v dunn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 86">customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 86">application for review of variable factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 86">application for continuation of existing dumping measures</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 86">material injury   legislation: customs act 1901 (cth) part xvb  customs tariff (anti-dumping) act 1975 (cth), s 8   cases cited: australian paper ltd v anti-dumping authority (1998) 88 fcr 367 , cited</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 241">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 241">application for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 241">decision of administrative appeals tribunal to refuse to issue summonses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 241">whether appellable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 241">availability of judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 241">" decision "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 241">incompetence of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 241">refusal of interlocutory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.0">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 89">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.1">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 89">application for leave to re-open before hearing is concluded and delivery of final judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.2">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 89">principles relevant to grant of leave to re-open</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.3">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 89">plaintiff seeking to tender further evidence coming into existence after conclusion of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.4">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 89">leave granted to re-open and submit further evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.5">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 89">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.6">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 89">principles concerning when an injunction of the kind referred to as a mareva order should be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.7">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 89">requirement of prima facie cause of action and real risk of frustration of judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.8">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 89">not necessary to show an intention to frustrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.9">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 89">no mareva order made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.10">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 89">balance of convenience in favour of defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 757">telstra corporation limited (acn 051 775 556) v australian competition and consumer commission and agile pty ltd (acn 080 855 321)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 757">nsd 69/2008    telstra corporation limited (acn 051 775 556) v australian competition and consumer commission and adam internet pty limited (acn 055 495 853)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 757">nsd 70/2008    telstra corporation limited (acn 051 775 556) v australian competition and consumer commission and primus telecommunications pty limited (acn 071 191 396)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 757">nsd 72/2008    telstra corporation limited (acn 051 775 556) v australian competition and consumer commission and amcom pty ltd (acn 009 336 341)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 757">nsd 73/2008    telstra corporation limited (acn 051 775 556) v australian competition and consumer commission and network technology (aust) pty ltd (acn 096 864 836)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 757">nsd 75/2008    telstra corporation limited (acn 051 775 556) v australian competition and consumer commission and tpg internet pty ltd (acn 068 383 737)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 757">nsd 77/2008    telstra corporation limited (acn 051 775 556) v australian competition and consumer commission and primus telecommunications pty limited (acn 071 191 396)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 757">nsd 78/2008    telstra corporation limited (acn 051 775 556) v australian competition and consumer commission and macquarie telecom pty limited (acn 082 930 916)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 757">nsd 105/2008    telstra corporation limited (acn 051 775 556) v australian competition and consumer commission and xyzed pty limited (acn 092 450 783)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 757">nsd 529/2008    telstra corporation limited (acn 051 775 556) v australian competition and consumer commission and powertel limited (acn 001 760 103)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 757">nsd 531/2008    telstra corporation limited (acn 051 775 556) v australian competition and consumer commission and request broadband pty ltd (acn 091 530 586)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 757">nsd 533/2008    telstra corporation limited (acn 051 775 556) v australian competition and consumer commission and optus networks pty limited (acn 008 570 330)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 757">nsd 717/2008    telstra corporation limited (acn 051 775 556) v australian competition and consumer commission and chime communications pty ltd (acn 073 119 285)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 757">nsd 718/2008    telstra corporation limited (acn 051 775 556) v australian competition and consumer commission and primus telecommunications pty limited (acn 071 191 396)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 757">nsd 719/2008</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">trade and commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">trade practices act 1974 (cth), part xic, telecommunications industry and access regime</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">dispute between telstra and optus regarding access to unconditioned local loop service (ulls) in multi-dwelling units (mdus)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">resolution of access dispute by australian competition and consumer commission (accc)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">final determination made by accc establishing regime for ordering and provisioning of ulls</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">whether final determination lawfully made  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">grounds of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">appeal under administrative decisions (judicial review) (adjr) act 1977 (cth), s 5</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">whether final determination unlawfully made on grounds that, in making final determination, accc: (1) did not take into account telstra's direct costs of providing access to the ulls (s 152cr(1)(d)); or (2) did not properly have regard to industry code as model terms and conditions (152aqb(9)) or otherwise (s 152cr(2)); or (3) failed to specify with reasonable precision or certainty terms and conditions relating access (s 152cp(2)); or (4) was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power ( wednesbury unreasonableness); or (5) exceeded its jurisdiction by incorrectly assuming a matter upon which the exercise of its jurisdiction depended (s 152cp(1)) trade and commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">trade practices act , part xic, div 8</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">extent to which accc's earlier determination adopted industry code standards regarding ordering and provisioning of ulls</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">mandatory terms of s 152aqb(1)(b) and (3) which stated respectively that accc "must make a written determination setting out model terms and conditions relating to access to each core service" and that accc "must take all reasonable steps to ensure that" such a determination is made within six months after commencement of section</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">whether accc had discretion to declare some but not all model terms and conditions relating to core service statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.14">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">clear words used by parliament requiring accc to make written determination to set out model terms and conditions relating to ulls and to take all reasonable steps to do so within six months</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.15">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">explanatory memorandum qualifying clear words in bill</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1640">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1640">severance of invalid from valid terms of a final determination made under s 152cp of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1640">application for judicial review succeeds in respect of one aspect of final determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1640">whether entire determination or only part of it should be set aside and remitted</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 408" id="cs0">The Minister also makes reference to a number of authorities as to the nature of further evidence that may be received after judgment has been reserved ( Bing! Software Pty Ltd v Bing Technologies Pty Ltd (No.2) [2008] FCA 1761 at [12] --- [15], Inspector-General in Bankruptcy v Bradshaw [2006] FCA 22 , Lee v Professional Services Review Committee No 292 (No 2) [2010] FCA 1490 at [2] , BMG Poseidon Corp Pty Ltd v Adelaide Bank Limited; In the Matter of BMG Poseidon Corp Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 389 at [10] , McLaughlin v Dungowan Manly Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 89 at [45] --- [56], Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition  Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1436). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] WASC 129" id="cs1">116 Another consideration of relevance to the decision to admit further evidence is the materiality of the evidence to the issues in dispute: Osborne v Landpower Developments [13] - [14] (McLure J). Different views have been expressed as to what is required in order that new evidence can be considered 'material'. In Watson , Wolff CJ held that the evidence should be admitted 'only when it is so material that the interests of justice require it' (89). In Daniel v Western Australia [2004] FCA 849 ; (2004) 138 FCR 254 [67] Nicholson J seemed to suggest that these considerations amounted to a requirement that the evidence, if accepted, would most certainly affect the result (see also Re Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union (WA Branch); Ex parte Ferguson (1986) 67 ALR 491 , 493 - 494 (Toohey J). There is not a single formulation as to the degree of probability required before it may be said that the admission of new evidence will affect the result: Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition  Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1436 ; (2008) 171 FCR 174 , 216 - 217 (Lindgren J).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] NSWADTAP 73" id="cs2">49 In addition, we agree in general terms with a submission by Ms Allars that section 73 of the ADT Act is of a character for which Lindgren J in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1436 used the label 'exhortatory'. At [164], he applied this term to section 152DB(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), providing the following explanation:-

 164 I regard s 152DB(1) as a general exhortatory provision: it exhorts ACCC to strive to achieve broad objectives. Some of those broad objectives, at least if regarded in isolation, are antithetical to one another. The notions of "speed", "proper consideration of the dispute", "careful inquiry and investigation", "quick inquiry and investigation", "inquiry into and investigation of ... all matters affecting the merits" (my emphasis) and "fairness" pull in different directions. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1140" id="cs3">This case falls into the first category. Here, however, it is usually necessary to show that the new evidence: (1) was not available at the hearing or could not be discovered with reasonable diligence; and (2) would most probably change the result: Council of the City of Greater Wollongong v Cowan [1955] HCA 16 ; (1955) 93 CLR 435 , 444; Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1436 ; (2008) 171 FCR 174 , [209]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 917" id="cs4">It may for present purposes be accepted that such fundamental rules of evidence as Jones v Dunkel and Browne v Dunn were not intended to be diminished in importance by provisions such as ss 37M and 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). Although in some statutory contexts mandates comparable to those set forth in ss 37M and 37N may be regarded as " a jumble of broadly expressed goals " (cf Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1436 at [161] [2008] FCA 1436 ; , 171 FCR 174 at 208 per Lindgren J), no mandate for this Court to act as " quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible " could act as a licence to proceed in a procedural (or evidential) manner which is unfair to a witness or a party. There has been no unfairness to any of the parties arising from the manner in which their competing cases have been conducted. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 86" id="cs5">44 The clearest instance where the Appellants contended that the primary Judge had erred by incorporating the criteria in s 269TG as criteria necessarily to be taken into account as " fundamental elements " when discharging the functions imposed by s 269ZDA and s 269ZDB was the following part of His Honour's reasoning:
 The Correct Test [82] ... The Minister (and the CEO in preparing the report under s 269ZDA(1)) had first, to take into account the criteria in s 269TG(2) and, secondly, to give weight to his or her conclusions on those criteria, as fundamental elements in making a declaration under s 269ZDB(1). In that way, the initial justification for the s 269TG(2) declaration would be revisited by the Minister having regard to the up-to-date information ascertained in the review process under Div 5 of Pt XVB and the purposes of the Act and the Dumping Duty Act would be addressed appropriately by him in making the relevant choice in a declaration under s 269ZDB(1)(a): R v Hunt; Ex parte Sean Investments Pty Ltd [1979] HCA 32 ; [1979] HCA 32 ; (1979) 180 CLR 322 at 329 per Mason J (with whom Gibbs J agreed); Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1758 ; (2008) 107 ALD 474 at 501---503 [103]---[112] where I discussed the principles. Contrary to such reliance as His Honour may have placed upon Sean Investments and his own earlier observations in Telstra Corporation , the Appellants contended that the requirement imposed upon the Chief Executive Officer by s 269ZDA(1) that he " must ... give the Minister a report recommending " one or other of those options set forth in s 269ZDA(1)(a) was not a requirement mandating that any particular matter had to be given " fundamental " importance: See Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1436 at [112] to [120] [2008] FCA 1436 ; , 171 FCR 174 at 200 to 201 per Lindgren J.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 241" id="cs6">Even had a contrary conclusion been reached in respect to the prospects of any success on appeal from the decision of the primary Judge, leave to appeal would nevertheless have been refused in the exercise of discretion. The Tribunal, it will be recalled, is directed by s 2A of the 1975 Act to conduct a review that is " fair, just, economical, informal and quick ". It is also a Tribunal which has been directed by the Legislature in s 33(1)(b) to conduct its proceedings " with as little formality and technicality, and with as much expedition ... [as] a proper consideration of the matters ... permit ". Whether such provisions are but " a jumble of broadly expressed goals " which may be " no doubt attractive in themselves " but which " are in tension with one another " (cf. Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1436 at [161] , 171 FCR 174 at 208 per Lindgren J) may presently be left to one side. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] NSWSC 89" id="cs7">52 In Telstra Corporation Limited v Australian Competition  Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1436 , Lindgren J, also having noted that the ultimate question for the court is whether it is in the interests of justice for the further evidence to be admitted, considered a motion for leave to re-open the hearing in circumstances where evidence came into existence some 13 days after the last day of the hearing. His Honour said at [209]:

 The particular criterion relevant to the present circumstances is whether it is probable to the required degree that the additional evidence will affect the result. There is not a single formulation in the cases as to the degree of probability required. In Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union (WA Branch); ex parte Ferguson (1986) 67 ALR 491 , Toohey J said (at 493-494):

 In situations where a hearing has concluded but judgment has been reserved and not delivered, it has been said that fresh evidence should be admitted only when it is so material that the interests of justice require it; the evidence is believed would most probably affect the result ; ... [my emphasis]

 In Daniel , RD Nicholson J stated (at 269) that it must be shown that the new evidence, if accepted, would " most certainly affect the result" (my emphasis). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 757" id="cs8">Arbitration takes place under Div 8 of Pt XIC. 6 In these fourteen proceedings Telstra challenges final determinations (FDs) made by ACCC in its arbitrations under Div 8 of the access disputes between Telstra and the 14 second respondents. 7 I have previously heard and determined three proceedings in which Telstra challenged FDs made by ACCC in relation to access disputes under Div 8: see Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1436 ; (2008) 171 FCR 174 (Earlier Reasons) and Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and Others (No 2) (2008) 251 ALR 372 ; [2008] FCA 1640. 8 In those proceedings, Telstra sought review of FDs made by ACCC in respect of LSS access disputes between Telstra of the one part and Request, Chime and Primus respectively of the other part. 9 The grounds on which Telstra relies in these proceedings are set out in the following table (Table), the numerals being the number of the ground in the relevant current form of the application for an order of review:

 TELSTRA'S GROUNDS PROCEEDINGS Agile LSS 69/2008 Adam
LSS 70/2008 Primus
LSS 72/2008 Amcom
LSS 73/2008 Network Tech LSS 75/2008 TPG
LSS 77/2008 Primus
ULLS
78/2008 Macquarie
ULLS
105/2008 XYZed
ULLS
529/2008 PowerTel
ULLS 531/2008 Request
ULLS
533/2008 Optus
ULLS
717/2008 Chime
ULLS 718/2008 Primus
ULLS
(Connections)
719/2008 A Pooling and Allocation Method --- s 152CR(1)(d)
- error of law
 5
 5
 5
 5
 5
 5
 2
 2
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 B ULLS Model Terms --- s 152AQB(9) ---procedural ultra vires and failure to take into account relevant consideration

 4
 4
 3
 3
 3
 3

 C Call Diversion --- FD not authorised by Act and made in excess of jurisdiction

 4
 4
 1 D WACC (Weighted Average Cost of Capital) --- error of law and Wednesbury unreasonableness
 6
 6
 6
 6
 6
 6
 3
 3
 2
 2
 2
 2
 2
 E Line costs --- error of law, no evidence and statutory procedural
ultra vires
 3, 4
 3, 4
 3, 4
 3, 4
 3, 4
 3, 4

 F 2007 LSS Pricing Principles --- s 152AQA(6) ---
Errors of law and taking into account
irrelevant consideration
 2
 2
 2
 2
 2
 2

 10 The second respondents can be conceived of as falling into groups according to their legal representation. DSLAM Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer D-ULLS (or DULLS) Diversion ULLS. A species of call diversion that is required in the context of ULLS ordering and provisioning. Earlier Reasons The reasons of the Court in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition  Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1436 ; (2008) 171 FCR 174 End-user A retail customer of a service provider. FD Final Determination. It is the various FDs in the 14 arbitrations under Div 8 of Pt XIC of the Act that are the subject of Telstra's challenge in the 14 proceedings.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1758" id="cs9">111 In Telstra [2008] FCA 1436 at [122] Lindgren J held that s 152CR(1)(a) is the factor which should be given fundamental weight, namely, whether the determination will promote the long-term interests of end-users of services supplied by means of carriage services. This was because, he held, that factor reflected the sole object of Part XIC of the Act as expressed in s 152AB(1): see Telstra [2008] FCA 1436 at [17] . Of course, s 152AB(2)(e) supplements this concept by identifying an objective of encouraging the economically efficient use of, and economically efficient investment in, the infrastructure by which listed services are supplied. Often that objective may not be attained if an infrastructure investment is not economically feasible for the service provider to make or support. So, by dint of s 152AB(2)(e) the interests of end-users may well include that the service provider is not forced to act in a way which for it is economically unjustifiable. Possibly, a monopolist may be able to be forced to lower prices or make way for competition under s 152AB(2)(e), but not to run the business as a charitable exercise or at a loss. 112 Therefore, depending on the facts of a particular arbitration, one or more of the matters in s 152CR(1) may become of greater or lesser weight in the decision-making process. However, as a matter of law, none of the factors, including s 152CR(1)(d), is entitled to a fixed weighting in that process regardless of the subject matter of any arbitration and all other relevant factors: Peko-Wallsend 162 CLR at 41 per Mason J; Foster 200 CLR at 452 [22]-[24] per Gleeson CJ and McHugh J; cf: Telstra [2008] FCA 1436 at [118] per Lindgren J. 109 Here, s 152CR(1) prescribes a number of matters for consideration. This is a sure legislative indication that these matters must be central matters for the Commission. But, because s 152CR(2) expressly widens the range of matters which the Commission may consider, it is authorised to arrive at a final determination, after due consideration, which accords more weight to some other factor or factors than those in s 152CR(1). Indeed, the factors in s 152CR(1) itself tend in different directions. The interests of a carrier (s 152CR(1)(b)) and those of all persons who have a right to use a declared service (s 152CR(1)(c)) more often than not will be opposed. If the Commission were to give fundamental weight to each in the sense which Telstra argued, how could it arrive at a decision favouring one at the expense of the other? cf Telstra Corporation Limited v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1436 at [311] - [312] per Lindgren J.  111 In Telstra [2008] FCA 1436 at [122] Lindgren J held that s 152CR(1)(a) is the factor which should be given fundamental weight, namely, whether the determination will promote the long-term interests of end-users of services supplied by means of carriage services. This was because, he held, that factor reflected the sole object of Part XIC of the Act as expressed in s 152AB(1): see Telstra [2008] FCA 1436 at [17] . Of course, s 152AB(2)(e) supplements this concept by identifying an objective of encouraging the economically efficient use of, and economically efficient investment in, the infrastructure by which listed services are supplied. Often that objective may not be attained if an infrastructure investment is not economically feasible for the service provider to make or support. So, by dint of s 152AB(2)(e) the interests of end-users may well include that the service provider is not forced to act in a way which for it is economically unjustifiable. Possibly, a monopolist may be able to be forced to lower prices or make way for competition under s 152AB(2)(e), but not to run the business as a charitable exercise or at a loss.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1640" id="cs10">1 On 19 September 2008 I published reasons for judgment in relation to the substantive issues raised in these three proceedings: see Telstra Corporation Limited v Australian Competition  Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1436. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l2">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l3">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 46 Construction of instruments</title>
<title id="l4">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l5">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l6">LEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENTS ACT 2003 </title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 420 Refugee Review Tribunal's way of operating</title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 476 Jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court</title>
<title id="l10">NATIONAL HEALTH ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l11">TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l12">TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION ACT 2002 </title>
<title id="l13">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l14">TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT (TELECOMMUNICATIONS) ACT 1997 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] AATA 1239">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] AATA 1239">superannuation guarantee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] AATA 1239">employer contributions one month late</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] AATA 1239">no discretion to reduce superannuation guarantee charge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] AATA 1051">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] AATA 1051">superannuation guarantee charge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] AATA 1051">contributions paid to fund late</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] AATA 1051">one contribution paid to agent on time but not received by fund within time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] AATA 1051">agency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] AATA 1051">absence of discretion to remit all or part of the superannuation guarantee charge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] AATA 1051">decision varied and decision affirmed..</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="[2006] FCAFC 27">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">appeals on a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">nature of an appeal pursuant to s 44(1) of administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">where purported questions of law invite broad enquiry as to the construction and operation of statutory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">where purported questions seek to characterise a question of fact as a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">where purported questions invite court to examine evidence and other material before the tribunal and conduct a rehearing on aspects of the controversy determined by the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether convenient to make for court to make findings of fact under s 44(7).  workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">commonwealth employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">meaning of 'injury' under commonwealth employees' compensation act 1930 (cth) and compensation (commonwealth government employees) act 1971 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether mere experiencing of event or condition necessary for development of a disease contracted by gradual process constitutes 'injury'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">s 101(2)(a) of commonwealth employees' rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether inchoate or contingent liabilities in respect of a disease contracted by gradual process transferred to administering authorities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">interaction of safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth) and veterans' entitlements act 1989 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether compensation payable in relation to service of defence force member where provision made for the payment of pension.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] AATA 113">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] AATA 113">capital gain</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] AATA 113">capital gain attributable to goodwill of a small business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] AATA 113">partial exemption unless choice for small business asset roll-over relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] AATA 113">general provision about choices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] AATA 113">preconditions for choosing small business asset roll-over relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] AATA 113">effect of rewritten provisions.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">application for extension of time to lodge application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">decision to "stand-down" employees following declarations under s.43a of the telecommunications act 1975</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">principles relevant to granting extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">undue delay.  administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 , s.11  telecommunications act 1975 , s.43a  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">application for extension of time to lodge application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">decision to "stand down" employees following declarations under s. 43a of the telecommunications act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">principles relevant to granting extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">undue delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">relevance of public interest and prejudice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 11</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">telecommunications act 1975 (cth), s. 43a. during a period of industrial dispute the respondent "stood down" certain employees and made directions under s. 43a of the telecommunications act 1975 (cth) that those employees should not be paid their salary for the relevant period. following the end of the dispute the applicants' union commenced inquiries and sought legal advice as to the validity of the order to "stand down". the applicants gave no notice to the respondent of any intention to bring proceedings. the applications for extension of time (within which to lodge applications for orders to review) were lodged about eighteen months after the "stand down" orders.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 128">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 128">appeal from a decision of the administrative appeals tribunal affirming decisions to cancel australian passport and issue adverse security assessment in relation to applicant under australian security intelligence organisation act 1979 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 128">whether in conducting review of decisions the tribunal erred in law in preventing applicant's legal representatives from having access to all of the evidence and submissions made by the respondents in reliance on security certificates issued by the attorney-general under ss 36 , 39a and 39b of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth) where no issue was taken before the tribunal as to the validity of the certificates</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 128">no error in law in tribunal failing to disregard certificates</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 128">any challenge to validity of certificates could not give rise to a question of law amenable to resolution by the court under s 44(1) of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 128">abandonment of ground of appeal due to failure of applicant's legal representatives to require tribunal to send all documents before it to the court under s 46(1) of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 128">failure of the applicant's legal representative to challenge the attorney-general's decision to issue the certificates under the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s 39b of the judiciary act 1903 (cth), or s 75(v) of the commonwealth constitution  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 128">challenge to constitutional validity of ss 39a and 39b of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth) where tribunal presided over by ch iii judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 128">whether mandated procedures are incompatible with powers and functions of a ch iii judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 128">tribunal's powers and functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 128">administrative not judicial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 128">nature of appointment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 128">persona designate with consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 128">no incompatibility in the present case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 128">whether security certificates invalid on their face</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 128">no condition of validity beyond attorney-general's certification of his opinion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2007] AATA 1833">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2007] AATA 1833">superannuation guarantee shortfalls imposed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2007] AATA 1833">further penalty imposed under part 7 of the superannuation guarantee (administration) act 1992 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2007] AATA 1833">whether the commissioner has a discretion to remit the superannuation guarantee charge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2007] AATA 1833">whether the part 7 penalty should be further remitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2007] AATA 1833">decision affirmed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 128" id="cs0">34 These observations have been applied in recent cases before this Court: see 005 542 512 Pty Ltd (Controller Appointed) v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 861 at [18] and Price Street Professional Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCAFC 154 ; (2007) 243 ALR 728 at [22] .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] AATA 1833" id="cs1">It is also apparent that none of the components of the SGC can be remitted. ( Pye and Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2004] AATA 143 ; (2004) 55 ATR 1024 ; Jarra Hills Pty Ltd and Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1997) 37 ATR 1022 ; Iwec Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation [2007] AATA 1051 ; (2007) 94 ALD 247 ; 005 542 512 Pty Ltd (Controller Appointed) v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 861).  Sections 16 , 17 and 19 outline the components of the superannuation guarantee shortfalls. When comparing those provisions with, for example, s 62 of the Act which makes an express provision for remitting part of the SGC payable by the employer, it is apparent that there is no power to remit the SGC. This has been well established in a number of cases ( Jarra Hills Pty Ltd and Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1997) 37 ATR 1022 at 1024; Iwec Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation [2007] AATA 1051 ; (2007) 94 ALD 247 at 251; 005 542 512 Pty Ltd (Controller Appointed) v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 861). </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">SUPERANNUATION GUARANTEE (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1992 </title>
<title id="l3">SUPERANNUATION GUARANTEE (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1992 - SECT 16 Charge payable by employer</title>
<title id="l4">SUPERANNUATION GUARANTEE (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1992 - SECT 19 Individual superannuation guarantee shortfalls</title>
<title id="l5">SUPERANNUATION GUARANTEE (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1992 - SECT 23 Reduction of charge percentage if contribution made to RSA or to fund other than defined benefit superannuation scheme</title>
<title id="l6">SUPERANNUATION GUARANTEE (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1992 - SECT 23A Offsetting late payments against charge</title>
<title id="l7">SUPERANNUATION GUARANTEE (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1992 - SECT 31 Nominal interest component</title>
<title id="l8">SUPERANNUATION GUARANTEE (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1992 - SECT 32 Administration component</title>
<title id="l9">SUPERANNUATION GUARANTEE (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1992 - SECT 33 Superannuation guarantee statements</title>
<title id="l10">SUPERANNUATION GUARANTEE (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1992 - SECT 35 First superannuation guarantee statement for a quarter taken to be assessment</title>
<title id="l11">SUPERANNUATION GUARANTEE (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1992 - SECT 36 Default assessments</title>
<title id="l12">SUPERANNUATION GUARANTEE (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1992 - SECT 37 Amendment of assessments</title>
<title id="l13">SUPERANNUATION GUARANTEE (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1992 - SECT 59 Failure to provide statements or information</title>
<title id="l14">SUPERANNUATION GUARANTEE (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1992 - SECT 62 Assessment of additional superannuation guarantee charge</title>
<title id="l15">SUPERANNUATION INDUSTRY (SUPERVISION) ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l16">SUPERANNUATION INDUSTRY (SUPERVISION) ACT 1993 - SECT 117 Circumstances in which amounts may be paid out of an employer-sponsored fund to an employer-sponsor</title>
<title id="l17">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>