Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs v nystrom  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">cancellation of visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">s 501(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where minister purported to cancel a "transitional (permanent) visa" on the basis of the respondent failing the character test in s 501(6) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where respondent had a substantial criminal record</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where respondent had lived in australia since he was 27 days old</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where respondent held an "absorbed person visa"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether the respondent also held a "transitional (permanent) visa"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether as a matter of construction the act allowed the respondent to hold both an "absorbed person visa" and a "transitional (permanent) visa".  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">decision of minister under s 501(2) or s 503 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether there was a misdescription of a visa which invalidated the minister's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether a failure to take into account relevant considerations invalidated a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether the minister's cancellation of a "transitional (permanent) visa" and disregard of the "absorbed person visa" amounted to jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where s 501f(3) would operate to cancel both visas.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">statutory construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">expressum facit cessare tacitum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where s 201 of the act excludes certain persons from the scope of the minister's power to deport pursuant to s 200 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where the respondent was a person covered by s 201 and also not an object of the power to deport pursuant to s 200</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether s 201 of the act confers a protection against deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether the subject matter of ss 200 , 201 and 501 of the act is the same, dealing with the removal of persons who have been convicted of offences from australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether the minister's lack of power to deport the respondent under s 200 limits the minister's power to cancel a visa under s 501</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether s 501 repugnant to ss 200 and 201 so as to necessitate s 501 being read subject to ss 200 and 201 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 121">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 121">decision to cancel transitional (permanent) visa on character grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 121">where appellant arrived in australia aged 27 days old</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 121">where minister failed to consider whether appellant held absorbed person visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 121">where minister failed to consider effect of cancellation on absorbed person visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 106">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 106">minister's discretion to cancel visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 106">whether impermissibly fettered by application of direction no 17</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 106">inference to be drawn in absence of reasons for minister's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 106">effect of references in briefing paper furnished to the minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 106">whether cancellation of visa of resident in australia from the age of 18 months a valid exercise of the power conferred by s 501(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 106">whether deportation of appellant a valid exercise of power with respect to aliens under s 51(xix) of the constitution .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 151">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 151">minister cancels visa under s 501(2) of the migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 151">scope of minister's discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 151">whether the provision should be read down to exclude considerations that are 'punitive' in character</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 151">whether any potential conflict with chapter iii of the constitution by purporting to rest judicial power in the minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 151">whether decisions giving weight to the need to protect the community are punitive in character  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 151">minister cancels visa under s 501(2) of the migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 151">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 151">best interests of the children</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 151">whether minister under obligation to make further inquiries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 137">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 137">cancellation of visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 137">failure to pass character test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 137">purported cancellation of 444-special category visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 137">national of new zealand living in australia since 1981</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 137">whether deemed holder of absorbed person's visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 137">whether ceased to be an immigrant at 2 april 1984</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 137">criteria of absorption into community</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 137">child</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 137">part of family unit migrating to australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 137">cancellation of non-existent deemed visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 137">visa actually held not subject to ministerial decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 137">cancellation decision invalid  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 137">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2004] FCA 137">limits of immigration power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2004] FCA 137">cessation of immigrant status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2004] FCA 137">membership of community</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[2004] FCA 137">absorption</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[2004] FCA 137">criteria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[2004] FCA 137">child</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[2004] FCA 137">part of family unit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 72">shaw v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 72">powers of the parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 72">naturalisation and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 72">applicant born in united kingdom</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 72">applicant entered australia in 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 72">applicant did not acquire australian citizenship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 72">cancellation of applicant's visa by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 72">whether power of cancellation validly extended to applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 72">whether applicant an "alien" for purposes of s 51(xix) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 72">whether applicant's statutory status as "british subject" at time of entry into australia inconsistent with classification as "alien"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 72">whether applicant a "subject of the queen" for purposes of s 117 of the constitution .  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2003] HCA 72">powers of the parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2003] HCA 72">whether applicant subject to removal under power with respect to immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2003] HCA 72">whether applicant subject to removal under power with respect to external affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2003] HCA 72">whether implied nationhood power relevant.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 747">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 747">where non-discontinuing party changes position rendering a significant component of the proceedings redundant and the other significant component practically futile</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 747">whether the discontinuing party should have his costs of the application.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 54">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 54">cancellation of visa by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 54">substantial and serious criminal record of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 54">application for review, prohibition and certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 54">limited to jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 54">alleged failure to give weight to essential factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 54">alleged absence of evidence on which to reach conclusion as to view of australian public</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 54">alleged failure to consider recent untested criminal charges migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 54">alleged violent and unlawful arrest, detention and removal including alleged deprivation of opportunity to obtain legal advice and representation regarding the minister's visa cancellation decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 54">no finding made to support alleged claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2007] AATA 1319">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2007] AATA 1319">return residence (class bb) visa, subclass 155 (five year resident return)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2007] AATA 1319">discretion to cancel visa where applicant fails character test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2007] AATA 1319">substantial criminal record</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2007] AATA 1319">ministerial direction no. 21</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2007] AATA 1319">primary and other considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2007] AATA 1319">applicant had difficult childhood and lack of education in vietnam</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2007] AATA 1319">applicant accepted into australia as a refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2007] AATA 1319">applicant became addicted to heroin</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2007] AATA 1319">evidence of support from family and employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2007] AATA 1319">held that tribunal can have regard to information elicited in cross-examination or in amplification of material previously provided notwithstanding that it had not been given to the respondent at least 2 business days before the hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">citing from="[2007] AATA 1319">meaning of "non-disclosable information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">citing from="[2007] AATA 1319">extent to which tribunal should consider merits of potential action for breach of confidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">citing from="[2007] AATA 1319">held that certain information not to be non-disclosable since it had previously been disclosed to the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">citing from="[2007] AATA 1319">weight to be attached to non-disclosable information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">citing from="[2007] AATA 1319">decision under review affirmed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 80">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 80">appeal from decision of administrative appeals tribunal affirming decision of delegate of first respondent minister to cancel applicant's visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 80">where applicant citizen of new zealand holding special category visa in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 80">where applicant convicted of serious criminal offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 80">where minister cancelled applicant's visa pursuant to s 501(2) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 80">where applicant purported to appeal under s 44 of administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 80">whether appeal under administrative appeals tribunal act competent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 80">whether power conferred by s 501(2) of migration act 1958 (cth) limited or supplanted by terms of s 200 and s 201 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 80">whether power to cancel visa exercised used for punitive purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2007] FCA 80">whether tribunal member failed to give proper consideration to relevant matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">citing from="[2007] FCA 80">whether tribunal member took expectations of australian community into account.  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">citing from="[2007] FCA 80">appeal under s 44 of administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth) incompetent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">citing from="[2007] FCA 80">decision excluded from scope of s 44 even if in excess of jurisdiction or resulting from failure to exercise jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">citing from="[2007] FCA 80">s 501 of migration act 1958 (cth) not limited by s 200 and s 201</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">citing from="[2007] FCA 80">no evidence tribunal member exercised power for improper or punitive purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">citing from="[2007] FCA 80">tribunal member gave proper consideration to matters identified by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">citing from="[2007] FCA 80">tribunal member did take expectations of australian community into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">citing from="[2007] FCA 80">appeal dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 747" id="cs0">(4) At the directions hearing on 3 June 2009, the Minister appeared to invite the applicant to clarify his TP visa status, suggesting that his s 195A visa was only temporary. The applicant also has no interest in acceding to such a request; he does not favour the possession of a TP visa over his current s 195A visa. It has been, and remains, common ground that the applicant fails the 'character test' under s 501 of the Act ( Pull v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2007] FCA 20). Any TP visa held by the applicant would be vulnerable to a new cancellation on this ground. Even if he did have such an interest, such an interest is insufficient to constitute a matter in federal jurisdiction ( Griffith University v Tang [2005] HCA 7 ; (2005) 221 CLR 99 at [90] ).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 54" id="cs1">111 Ground 1(b), if not expressly abandoned was certainly not pursued at the hearing. As I perceived it, Mr Morrison appeared to acknowledge through counsel that as in the case of M238 of 2002 [2003] FCAFC 260 at [59] and as had also occurred in Pull [2007] FCA 20 , while the Minister did not have specific evidence before him as to the expectations of the Australian community in relation to the factors outlined in these grounds, nevertheless, the Minister formed his own evaluative judgement as he was entitled to do. It was not necessary for the Minister to make specific reference to every item which Mr Morrison would wish the Minister to record. Further, it does appear to me in substance again that this is an attack on the merits of the decision rather than a ground of judicial review.  110 Similarly, in the present situation there is no doubt that the Minister was aware and recorded the fact that Mr Morrison had children and stepchildren and in considering the matter of the best interests of the children he recorded that the children would suffer hardship relating to the loss of a father figure and that his removal from Australia would cause hardship to the children. He recorded that it would possibly be difficult for Mr Morrison's family to cope financially and for Ms Roberts to cope with six children. As in the case of Pull [2007] FCA 20 (in relation to the Tribunal), the Minister clearly took into account the hardship relating to Mr Morrison's children and clearly gave genuine consideration to that issue.  109 In Pull v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2007] FCA 20 at [42] a similar claim was made. The applicant in Pull considered that the Tribunal (the Administrative Appeals Tribunal) had not given genuine and proper consideration to the expectations of the Australian community because the Tribunal member did not refer to certain matters including that the applicant had 'two daughters who are Australian citizens and there is no evidence to suggest that they will ever be able to renew their relationship with the applicant'. At the time that those proceedings were commenced, s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) did not (by reason of s 483 of the Act) apply to a privative clause decision. Therefore, it followed that to succeed the applicant was required to show that the Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error. As observed by Besanko J at [43]:

 There can be no doubt that the Tribunal member considered the expectations of the Australian community and it does not follow that simply because he did not mention or place emphasis on particular matters identified by the applicant that he failed to give the matter genuine and proper consideration. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] AATA 1319" id="cs2">I refer also to Deputy President McMahon's comment in Re Leha and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 1054 at [34] , that there would also be a general expectation in the community that the Act will be administered fairly and humanely. It is also relevant to take into account that the applicant has already been punished by the Courts by which he was convicted, and his visa should not be cancelled in order to impose some further form of punishment: Pull v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2007] FCA 20 at 43, per Selway J at first instance; Re Suardana and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1980) 2 ALD 830 at 832 --- 833. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 80" id="cs3">Therefore, it fails. '

The reasoning of Gummow and Heydon JJ was to similar effect (at [60]-[70]). I applied this reasoning in the recent decision of Pull v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2007] FCA 20 at [31] - [33] (' Pull '). That case was also a case where the visa holder was not liable to deportation under s 200 of the Act.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l3">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]</title>
<title id="l4">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l5">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 78B Notice to Attorneys-General</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 82 When visas cease to be in effect</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 200 Deportation of certain non-citizens</title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 201 Deportation of non-citizens in Australia for less than 10 years who are convicted of crimes</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 483 Section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975</title>
<title id="l11">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 499 Minister may give directions</title>
<title id="l12">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 501 Refusal or cancellation of visa on character grounds</title>
<title id="l13">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 502 Minister may decide in the national interest that certain persons are to be excluded persons</title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l15">MIGRATION REFORM (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) REGULATIONS </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 41 Bankruptcy notices</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l3">UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1999 </title>
<title id="l4">UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1999 - SECT 4 4 Dictionary</title>
<title id="l5">UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1999 - SECT 28 28 Service of affidavit in support of application</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 952">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 952">application for costs of interlocutory applications to be made payable forthwith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 952">federal court rules o 62 r 3</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 952">defendants made late filings of affidavit material causing vacation of trial date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 952">costs thrown away</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 952">final judgment not "far away"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 952">not appropriate that costs be payable forthwith.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 291">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 291">security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 291">interlocutory injunction granted on "usual" undertaking as to damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 291">injunction later discharged by consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 291">application withdrawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 291">assessment of compensation pursuant to undertaking as to damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1992] FCA 291">application for security for costs by party seeking compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1992] FCA 291">power of court to order security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1992] FCA 291">whether applicant for security is in the position of a respondent.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">magistrates' courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">discretion to award costs to defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">magistrates (summary proceedings) act 1975 (vict.), s.97(b).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 419">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 419">application under o 31a of the federal court act 1979 (cth) for summary judgment or alternatively under o 35a of the federal court rules to dismiss or stay the proceedings in whole or in part</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 419">whether the applicant failed to prosecute the proceedings with due diligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 419">whether the applicant failed to comply with an order or orders of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 419">whether the applicant's behaviour in the proceedings means the proceedings ought to be dismissed or stayed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1253">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1253">application for further security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1253">s 1335 corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1253">threshold to be met for an award of security to be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1253">words of statute must govern the exercise of the power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1253">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1147">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1147">setting aside subpoenas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1147">legitimate forensic purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1147">oppressiveness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1147">" relating to "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1147">costs on an indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1147">costs payable " forthwith "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1147">cross-examination on affidavit as to discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1147">order for discovery</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 419" id="cs0">Previous judgments in relation to interlocutory applications have recounted the history of the proceedings: Smart Company Pty Ltd v Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1008 ; (2008) 249 ALR 388 ; Smart Company Pty Ltd v Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1253 ; Smart Company Pty Ltd v Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 4. What follows is a summary of that history.  On 3 July 2008 reasons were published for ordering the applicant to pay the costs of its application for leave to file the FFASOC: Smart Company Pty Ltd v Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1008 ; (2008) 249 ALR 388. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1253" id="cs1">The history relating to that application is fully described in my reasons for judgment in Smart Company Pty Ltd v Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1008 at [2] - [22]. For completeness I include these paragraphs.

 The application seeking leave to amend had its genesis in a notice of motion which was filed on 12 June 2007 in which the applicant sought leave to amend its third further amended statement of claim.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1147" id="cs2">23 Even though declaratory and injunctive relief has been granted already, it is not considered that an order would have been made that such costs as are to be paid should be paid forthwith. The conduct of the litigation to date has certainly not been characterised by any degree of expedition; but the hearing of the balance of the proceeding and the resolution of all outstanding issues, it is anticipated, can be accommodated at a comparatively early date: cf Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Mining Projects Group Ltd (No 3) [2008] FCA 952 at [24] per Gordon J; Smart Co Pty Ltd v Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1008 at [43] per Lander J. In such circumstances it is not considered that there should be a departure from the general principle that costs should be payable when the rights of the parties -- including any liability in damages -- are finally determined. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 10">admiralty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 10">treatment or holding of livestock sewage onboard ship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 10">maritime authority refused foreign-flagged ship permission to load livestock because of lack of compliance with parts of marine orders pt 43, o 12.2 and cl 6.6 of appendix 4</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 10">appeal from decision by primary judge that these parts of marine orders were invalid, being inconsistent with div 12c of pt iv of navigation act 1912 (cth), to extent applicable to foreign-flagged ships</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 10">law of state of flag of ship  statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 10">extent of regulation making power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 10">authority's powers to make regulations or orders under ss 190b(1) and 257 (1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 10">whether div 12c of pt iv of navigation act imposed limitation on authority's powers under ss 190b(1) and 257 (1) to make regulations or orders with respect to annex iv of marpol 73/78</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 10">whether s 267zq gave authority power to require structure of foreign ship to be modified so that it would comply with annex iv</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 10">subject matter, scope and purpose of act</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 10" id="cs0"/>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">NAVIGATION ACT 1912 </title>
<title id="l1">NAVIGATION ACT 1912 - SECT 257 Loading, stowing, carriage and unloading of cargo</title>
<title id="l2">NAVIGATION ACT 1912 - SECT 267ZF Regulations to give effect to Regulations 4, 9 and 10 of Annex IV</title>
<title id="l3">NAVIGATION ACT 1912 - SECT 267ZG International Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificates for Australian ships</title>
<title id="l4">NAVIGATION ACT 1912 - SECT 267ZJ Alteration etc. of construction of ships and cancellation of certificates</title>
<title id="l5">NAVIGATION ACT 1912 - SECT 267ZK Ships to be surveyed periodically</title>
<title id="l6">NAVIGATION ACT 1912 - SECT 267ZL Cancellation of sewage certificate if ship ceases to be an Australian ship</title>
<title id="l7">NAVIGATION ACT 1912 - SECT 267ZM Certificates required for Australian ships</title>
<title id="l8">NAVIGATION ACT 1912 - SECT 267ZN Certificates to be carried on board Australian ships</title>
<title id="l9">NAVIGATION ACT 1912 - SECT 267ZQ Directions in relation to foreign ships</title>
<title id="l10">NAVIGATION ACT 1912 - SECT 425 Regulations</title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l1">AUDIT ACT </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 646">practice and procedure:</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 646">whether discretion to grant declaratory relief should be exercised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 646">whether injunctive relief should be granted when no further contravening conduct.   costs:</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 646">exercise of discretion to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 646">apportionment.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 13">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 13">compulsory examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 13">power to issue summons for examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 13">no application to examinable affairs of corporation not under external administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 13">no power in asic to authorise application for such a summons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 13">if purported power so extends unconstitutional conferral of administrative function on court  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 13">judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 13">administrative function</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 13">not able to be characterised as judicial not incidental to the exercise of any judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 13">power to issue summons for examination with respect to examinable affairs of corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 13">corporation not under external administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 13">not subject to any other relevant judicial process under ch 5 of corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 13">purported conferral of power invalid</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 1 Objects</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 596A Mandatory examination</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1330 ASIC's power to intervene in proceedings</title>
<title id="l5">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l6">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 78 Appearance of parties</title>
<title id="l7">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 78B Notice to Attorneys-General</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 576">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 576">review of migration review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 576">spouse visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 576">cancellation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FMCA 576">fact finding a matter for tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FMCA 576">the evidence the tribunal chooses to gather is a matter for it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FMCA 576">tribunal not required to set itself up as contradictor of evidence it finds convincing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FMCA 576">tribunal is not required to refer to every piece of evidence before it or to every argument advanced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FMCA 576">s.359a requires information be notified to an applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FMCA 576">s.359a does not require particular documents to be applied.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">appeal from decision of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">whether any appealable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">whether migration review tribunal complied with its obligations under s 360 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">burden of proof on judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">whether negligence of migration agent established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">relevance of s 361 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">effect of mistranslation of sponsor's statement to interviewing officer where interviewing officer also the delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">whether supposed admissions made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">whether perception of interviewing officer/delegate seriously mistaken on account of mistranslation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">tribunal relied on account of interviewing officer/delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">whether the tribunal acted unreasonably in failing to make enquiries of interviewing officer/delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">finding of jurisdictional error upheld</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs v sglb  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">expert medical advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">psychological state of applicant assumed to be possible explanation for unsatisfactory evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether denial of procedural fairness by failing to order further psychological assessment of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether denial of procedural fairness by accepting that applicant suffered stress disorder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether denial of procedural fairness by acceptance of effects of disorder on applicant without expert medical advice.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">privative clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether putative errors of the refugee review tribunal fell within the operation of s 474 of the migration act 1958 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">re minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte applicant s154/2002  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">whether tribunal misled applicant into believing factual claim had been accepted as true</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">whether tribunal relied on evidence tendered earlier to disbelieve factual claim without giving applicant opportunity to demonstrate evidence was not inconsistent with factual claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">whether tribunal relied on belated disclosure of rape incident to disbelieve factual claim in circumstances where belated disclosure might have been explicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">whether subsequent hearing and provision of written submissions cured any earlier breach of requirements of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">inquisitorial hearing by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">whether failure by tribunal to afford procedural fairness amounting to jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">application for permanent residence in australia by spouse of person having permanent resident status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">validity of decision to refuse application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">failure of minister to take into account relevant material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">unreasonableness of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">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="cp4.8">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">immigration and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">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="cp4.11">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">whether minister had failed to take into account relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">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="cp4.13">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">taking of further evidence to adduce facts not before the minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">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="cp4.15">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="cp4.16">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="cp5.0">citing from="[2009] FMCAfam 496">child support</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2009] FMCAfam 496">appeal from ssat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2009] FMCAfam 496">consideration of 'just and equitable'.  child support</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2009] FMCAfam 496">departure application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2009] FMCAfam 496">special circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2009] FMCAfam 496">school fees.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCAfam 496" id="cs0">This is not dissimilar to the operation of tribunals such as the Migration Review Tribunal or the Refugee Review Tribunal. However, in cases before the latter tribunals, usually the relevant evidence will be within the possession or power of the person appearing before the tribunal if it is able to be obtained at all. To the extent that relevant material has been in the possession of the Department (provided it is directly relevant to the decision to be made), courts have found that it is incumbent on the tribunal to make appropriate enquiries (for example, see Minister for Immigration v Le [2007] FCA 1318 ; (2007) 164 FCR 151 ; (2007) 242 ALR 455 ; (2007) 97 ALD 112 ; Burton v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 1464 and SZIAI v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 1372 ; (2008) 104 ALD 22). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 2" id="cs1">30 What was proposed on behalf of the appellant goes beyond an inquiry of the kind contemplated by the authorities to which I have referred. Here there was no information, not presently available, which could readily have been obtained by the making of a simple inquiry. To the contrary, the substance of the matters upon which the appellant relied were already before the Tribunal in the affidavits and statements referred to. It was not suggested that there was any omission which should have been apparent to the Tribunal. The purpose of any such contact as was proposed, therefore, could not have been to obtain information. In my view, the position for which the appellant contends derives no support from the authorities to which I have referred earlier in these reasons. In this respect I agree with the views expressed by Jacobson J in Burton v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1464 , [27] --- [33]. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 109 Cancellation of visa if information incorrect</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 140 Cancellation of visa results in other cancellation</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 154 Officer not liable--criminal justice stay certificates or warrants</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 363 Powers of the Tribunal etc.</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 426 Applicant may request Refugee Review Tribunal to call witnesses</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>