Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1747">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1747">appeal from decision of federal magistrate reviewing decision of the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1747">where federal magistrate failed to make findings with respect to a ground of application, namely whether tribunal erred in finding that the appellant could safely relocate within pakistan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1747">whether miscarriage of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1747">whether appeal should be allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1747">prospects of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1747">whether tribunal actually required to consider whether relocation an option</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1747">whether ground of appeal "plainly arguable"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1816">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1816">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1816">applicant claimed he had attempted to relocate after tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1816">applicant sought impermissible merits review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1816">tribunal did not fail to direct its mind</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1816">country information is a matter for the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1816">no failure to conduct a fair hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1816">credibility finding was not an error of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1816">tribunal was not one sided</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1816">no error in relocation finding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1816">unhcr handbook not prescriptive in interpretation of convention definition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1816">tribunal's reasons were not vague</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1816">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1816">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 622">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 622">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 622">refusal by tribunal of application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 622">fresh evidence of business tendered before federal magistrate but not admitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 622">federal magistrate not in error in refusing evidence directed to contravening a question of fact before the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 622">leave not appropriate to argue new grounds alleged to go to jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 622">such grounds having little prospect of success in any event</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 622">no failure by tribunal to consider membership of a particular social group of businessmen when particularity of group not identified to tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 622">no arguable denial of natural justice when need to obtain documentation from sri lanka not identified to tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 622">no misapplication of s 424a(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 660">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 660">claim for protection visa refused by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 660">application for writs of prohibition and certiorari under s 75(v) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 660">remittal from high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 660">application for writ of certiorari brought out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 660">reasons for delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 660">whether any arguable jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 660">new refugee sur place claim.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v respondents s152/2003  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">applications for protection visas by de facto husband and wife nationals of ukraine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">well-founded fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">husband claimed to suffer religious persecution as jehovah's witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">refugee review tribunal found that incidents of which husband complained were individual and random incidents and did not amount to persecution, and that the chance that he would suffer persecution in future was remote</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">tribunal rejected claim that state encouraged or condoned persecution of jehovah's witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">whether full court of federal court erred in concluding that tribunal committed jurisdictional error in failing to consider a different claim of whether the husband might suffer future harm from private individuals because of religious belief and whether the government of ukraine was able in a practical sense to stop such harm occurring</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">absence of evidence before tribunal to support a conclusion that ukraine did not provide level of protection required.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">applications for protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">relevance of attitude or capacity of state to whether fear of harm well-founded, to whether there is persecution, to whether a person is outside country of nationality owing to well-founded fear of persecution and to unwillingness of person to seek protection of state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">protection theory and accountability theory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">non-state actor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">harm by non-state actors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">persecution by non-state actors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">state complicity in persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">persecution tolerated or condoned by state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">failure of state protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">unwilling or unable to provide protection.  international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">treaty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">refugees convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">"persecution"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.24">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">different theories of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.25">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">meaning of treaty provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.26">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">proper approach to meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.27">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">primacy of text</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.28">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">approaches of courts in countries of refuge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.29">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">protection theory and accountability theory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.30">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">whether a third theory applicable.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs v sglb  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">expert medical advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">psychological state of applicant assumed to be possible explanation for unsatisfactory evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether denial of procedural fairness by failing to order further psychological assessment of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether denial of procedural fairness by accepting that applicant suffered stress disorder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">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="cp6.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">privative clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">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="cp11.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">application for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">internal protection principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">well-founded fear of persecution not extending to whole country</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">relocation in country of nationality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">reasonableness of relocation alternative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">nature of inquiry decision-maker required to undertake.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 360">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 360">review of rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 360">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 360">persecution on religious grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 360">where applicant practiced christianity in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 360">whether tribunal's decision was fair and just</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 360">whether tribunal bound to make inquiries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2011] FMCA 360">whether deprivation of natural justice, prejudice and bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2011] FMCA 360">where applicant not considered a credible witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">citing from="[2011] FMCA 360">whether tribunal may take into account timing of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">citing from="[2011] FMCA 360">merits review.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 84">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 84">review of decision of rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 84">where applicant claims tribunal failed to deal with an integer of his claims and conducted itself in a manner consistent with apprehended bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 84">whether tribunal misapplied dicta in guitta levy or mmm</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 84">whether remarks made about applicant's credibility indicated apprehended bias.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 121">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 121">review of rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 121">applicant a citizen of fiji who claimed he had been attacked by soldiers after speaking out about human rights abuses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 121">where tribunal was aware of inconsistencies in applicant's evidence and did not accept his claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 121">apprehended or actual bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 121">where no transcript in evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 121">whether tribunal erred by allowing applicant to discuss claim without asking him to address specific issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2011] FMCA 121">whether tribunal failed to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to his claims or breached s.424a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 937">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 937">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 937">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 937">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 720">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 720">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 720">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 720">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 595">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 595">review of rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 595">applicants mother and son from china</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 595">where primary applicant claimed her husband had been the victim of local government corruption and that she was suspected of having distributed an anti-government petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 595">whether tribunal failed to notify applicant of adverse information under s.424a or denied applicant opportunity to give evidence under s.425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 595">where neither claim particularised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 595">whether tribunal's decision irrational, illogical or unreasonable or whether decision infected with bias.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 487">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 487">review of decision of rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 487">where applicant complains about interpretation but does not produce any evidence upon which his claims can be tested.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 336">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 336">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 336">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 336">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 181">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 181">application to set aside orders dismissing an application for review of a decision of the refugee review tribunal and an application that the matter be transferred to the federal court of australia pursuant to rule 13.03c(1)(c) of the federal magistrates court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 181">whether in interests of justice to set aside orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 181">explanation for the applicant's non-appearance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 181">whether futile to set aside orders.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 139">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 139">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 139">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 139">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 78">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 78">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 78">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 78">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1063">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1063">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1063">whether bias, failure to consider claims or breach of s.424 of the migration act.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1108">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1108">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1108">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1108">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1088">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1088">review of decision of rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1088">where applicant claims lack of procedural fairness because the tribunal failed to provide him with a copy of his sister's pva.  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1088">where applicant is advised to present all his arguments initially and fails to do so</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1088">where applicant holds submissions in reserve until after respondent has replied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1088">whether to permit submissions to be made.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 984">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 984">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 984">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 984">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 927">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 927">review of rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 927">applicants citizens of china</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 927">whether claim that tribunal acted unreasonably merely reflective of disagreement with its decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 927">whether findings of tribunal indicated bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 927">s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 927">claim that certain documents and conclusions should have been put to the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 927">where applicant essentially seeking merits review.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 789">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 789">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 789">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 789">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 517">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 517">application to review decision of migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 517">health requirements for a visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 517">whether tribunal bound to take opinion of the medical officer of the commonwealth as correct.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 279">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 279">application to review decision of migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 279">skilled independent overseas student visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 279">whether entitled to points for occupation in demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 279">whether nomination of occupation in demand must be made at time of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 279">whether entitled to bonus points</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 279">whether in a skilled occupation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 279">whether accredited as professional interpreter or translator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 279">whether jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 348">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 348">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 348">whether no evidence or breach of s.425.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 256">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 256">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 256">written request for information from a third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 256">specification of period for provision of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 256">whether "breach" of s.424b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 256">whether tribunal erred in its consideration of applicant's request for an extension of time to provide response to s.424a letter or further information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 256">no jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 93">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 93">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 93">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 93">applicant claiming religious persecution in china</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 93">applicant not believed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 93">tribunal reasons not supported by statements on transcript</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 93">apprehended bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 93">jurisdictional error found.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1715">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1715">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1715">information obtained by tribunal from china through australian consulate general</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1715">whether failure to comply with s.424, s.424a or s.425 of the migration act.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1691">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1691">review of decision of rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1691">where applicant did not respond to s.424 letter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1691">where tribunal declined to give hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1691">where applicant criticised first tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1691">where applicant claimed membership of a particular social group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1691">where application sought merits review.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1593">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1593">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1593">typographical error in tribunal reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1593">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1593">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1408">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1408">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1408">second application for judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1408">no arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1408">application dismissed at first court date.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1108">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1108">review of rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1108">where tribunal not satisfied that incidents of persecution claimed by the applicant had occurred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1108">whether tribunal was required to make inquiries regarding a document provided by the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1108">whether tribunal misapplied the 'real chance' test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1108">whether tribunal should have considered the cumulative effect of the applicant's claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1108">whether tribunal required to apply test on the issue of relocation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1092">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1092">review of rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1092">where tribunal failed to reach state of satisfaction that applicant was a person to whom protection obligations were owed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1092">where tribunal not satisfied with authenticity of corroborative evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1092">whether tribunal failed to consider applicant's claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1092">whether tribunal required to conduct its own inquiries regarding the applicant's claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1092">whether tribunal gave proper consideration to applicant's documents.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 880">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 880">review of decision of rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 880">where applicant claims tribunal ignored information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 880">where applicant alleges standard of interpretation deficient but provides no evidence by way of transcript or otherwise and does not seek an adjournment.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 360" id="cs0">The final ground relied on by the applicant was: "I was deprived of natural justice because the Tribunal erred in laws due to its prejudice and bias against me. "
Insofar as his claim refers to bias, it is a matter that only in rare and extreme circumstances can be established simply by reference to the reasons produced by the Tribunal; SZHVL v The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 356 as McKerracher J said (at [17]) in that case:

 "It is clear that an allegation of bias must be distinctly made and proven: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 at [69] per Gleeson CJ and Gummow J. It would be a rare and extreme circumstance that bias on the part of the Tribunal would be established simply by reference to the reasons produced by the Tribunal: SCAA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 668 at [38] per von Doussa J. "

The applicant in the instant case has provided no particulars of the alleged bias and it is certainly not evident or even hinted at in the Tribunal's reasons for decision. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 84" id="cs1">The applicant accepts that it would only be a very rare and extreme circumstance whereby bias on the part of the Tribunal could be established simply by reference to the reasons produced by the Tribunal; SZHDL v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2008] FCA 356 , however he advances that claim in this case. The test for apprehended bias in the case of an administrative proceeding was articulated by Branson J in Ling v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2004] FCA 1069 echoing the decision of the High Court in Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H [2001] HCA 28 ; [2001] 75 ALJR 982 at [28] . Her Honour said: "The appropriate test to be applied in determining whether the conduct of the Tribunal gave rise to an apprehension of bias is that identified by the High Court in Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex Parte H [2001] HCA 28 ; 75 (2001) ALJR 982 at [28] . That test is whether a hypothetical fair-minded lay person, who is properly informed as to the nature of the proceedings, the matters in issue and the conduct which is said to have given rise to an apprehension of bias, might reasonably apprehend that the Tribunal might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question to be decided. "
The High Court itself affirmed the test in Minister for Immigration  Anor v SZJSS [2010] HCA 48 at [42] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 121" id="cs2">And in SZHVL v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 356 McKerracher J said at [17]: "It is clear that an allegation of bias must be distinctly made and proven: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 at [69] per Gleeson CJ and Gummow J: It would be a rare and extreme circumstance that bias on the part of the Tribunal would be established simply by reference to the reasons produced by the Tribunal : SCAA v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCA 668 at [38] per von Doussa J. "
As has been said, disagreement with, even violent disagreement with the views expressed by a Tribunal does not constitute jurisdictional error. In this particular case, the inconsistencies pointed out by the Tribunal existed. The Tribunal was charged with determining whether or not it should accept the explanations given by the applicant and determined not to. In those circumstances, its findings were based upon available evidence and do not reveal jurisdictional error. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 937" id="cs3">As the solicitor for the first respondent pointed out, if the applicant intended to claim that persons in circumstances similar to hers (where the Tribunal had found that such persons were not Falun Gong practitioners in China and that the only purpose of Falun Gong activities in Australia was to strengthen claims) had been granted protection visas there is no basis for any such contention. It seems more likely the applicant meant that persons with similar claims to her had been found by the Tribunal to be persons to whom Australia had protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. However such an assertion does not establish jurisdictional error. It is for the Tribunal to make findings of fact in relation to the claims of the particular applicant before it. In this case the applicant's claims were rejected on the basis of all of her evidence. The findings made by the Tribunal were open for the reasons which it gave, notwithstanding that it may be intended to assert that a different decision-maker might have reached a different conclusion on those facts. Again, I note that there is nothing in the material before the court to support any claim of actual or apprehended bias. Any such allegation must be " distinctly made and clearly proved " ( Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 ; [2001] HCA 17 at [69] and [127]). It is rare that it would be established on the Tribunal record of decision alone and there is nothing in the Tribunal's reasons for decision to support such a contention (see SCAA v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 668 and SZHVL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 356). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 720" id="cs4">Actual bias is a serious allegation that must be clearly particularised. It is only a rare and exceptional case in which actual bias will be established from the Tribunal reasons for decision alone (see SCAA v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 668 and SZHVL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 356). There is nothing in the Tribunal reasons for decision and its summary of the hearing to establish an allegation of actual bias. The fact that the Tribunal had concerns and drew those to the applicant's attention during the hearing is not indicative of actual bias. Its decision was open to it on the material before it for the reasons which it gave. These claims are not made out. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 595" id="cs5">The final ground was: "3. The Tribunal's decision has included a reasonable apprehension of bias;
Particulars

The Tribunal's decision was infected with jurisdictional error in that the reasoning process employed by the Tribunal in reaching its decision reveals irrationality, illogicality and/or unreasonableness. "

Regrettably, the Court was not told what extracts from the Tribunal decision are irrational. There are no hints as to what might constitute illogicality and no indications of where unreasonableness might be found. Without these, and bearing in mind that McKerracher J said in SZHVL v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 356 at [17] that:

 "It would be a rare and extreme circumstance that bias on the part of the Tribunal would be established simply by reference to the reasons produced by the Tribunal: SCAA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 668 at [38] per von Doussa J. See also SBBF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 358 at [16] per Tamberlin, Mansfield and Jacobson JJ. "

I would have to reject this ground as well. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 487" id="cs6">The applicant has provided no evidence of the bias that he alleges. In SZHVL v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 356 , McKerracher J said [17]: "It would be a rare and extreme circumstance that bias on the part of the Tribunal would be established simply by reference to the reasons produced by the Tribunal: SCAA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 668 at [38] per von Doussa J. See also SBBF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 358 at [16] per Tamberlin, Mansfield and Jacobson JJ.
These authorities make it clear that I am unable to assist the applicant in his claim of bias without some better evidence. "
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 336" id="cs7">Nor is there anything in the material before the court indicative of either actual or apprehended bias. It is a rare case in which actual bias will be established on the basis of the Tribunal reasons alone (see SCAA v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 668 , SZHVL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 356). This is not such a case. Rather, the decision record reveals that the Tribunal was aware of the law to be applied, considered the applicant's written and oral claims, gave him an opportunity to elaborate on his claims and to address its concerns, considered independent country information and assessed the applicant's claims in view of the applicable law and on the evidence before it. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 181" id="cs8">In relation to the claim of bias, it is well established that it is only in a " rare and extreme circumstance that bias on the part of the Tribunal would be established simply by reference to the reasons produced by the Tribunal " (see SZHVL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 356 at [17] and cases cited therein). This is not such a case. The fact that the Tribunal proceeded as it did, its statement that it had " done its best to distil the applicant's claims from the materials, information and submissions " and the fact that it found much of the applicant's material to be " confused in its sense ", " difficult to understand " and " unclear " is not indicative of actual bias in the sense considered in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 ; [2001] HCA 17 or apprehended bias in the sense considered in Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H (2001) 75 ALJR 982 ; [2001] HCA 28. As Sundberg J pointed out in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v MZXPA and Another (2008) 100 ALD 312 ; [2008] FCA 185 at [13] , the hypothetical fair-minded and informed person from whose perspective an apprehension of bias is assessed: ... would be aware of the nature of the Tribunal's review functions and proceedings, and that the Tribunal would not invite an applicant to a hearing unless, on the material available to it, it had already reached a preliminary view unfavourable to the applicant. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 139" id="cs9">It is well-established that it is only in a rare and extreme circumstance that bias on the part of the Tribunal would be established simply by reference to the Tribunal reasons for decision. See SZHVL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 356. There is no transcript of the hearing before the court in this instance. The material before the court is not such as to support the applicant's claims of bias, whether actual bias in the sense considered in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 ; [2001] HCA 17 or apprehended bias in the sense considered in Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H (2001) 75 ALJR 982 ; [2001] HCA 28. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 78" id="cs10">The third ground is that the Tribunal's decision gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Such a generally expressed claim is not made out. It is only in rare and extreme circumstances that bias on the part of the Tribunal would be established simply by reference to the Tribunal's reasons for decision (see SZHVL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 356). As discussed further below, neither apprehended bias in the sense considered in Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H (2001) 75 ALJR 982 ; [2001] HCA 28 , or actual bias in the sense considered in the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 ; [2001] HCA 17 , is made out on the material before the court. In particular, no partiality or perception of bias or a closed mind is established on the part of the Tribunal member on the basis of the decision record from the perspective of the appropriately informed reasonable lay observer. Rather it appears from the Tribunal's reasons for decision that the Tribunal embarked on a thorough examination of the applicant's claims, which properly involved testing those claims at the hearing. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1063" id="cs11">Neither actual nor apprehended bias is established in the manner contended for by the applicant. There is nothing in the material before the court to establish that the Tribunal was biased in the sense considered in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 ; [2001] HCA 17. Actual bias is not easily proved and, as stated in SZHVL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 356 , it would only be in a rare and extreme circumstance that bias on the part of the Tribunal would be established simply by reference to the reasons produced by the Tribunal. In this case there is, in addition, the timing of the various events relied on by the applicant but this is not such as to establish either actual bias or apprehended bias considered from the perspective of the appropriately informed lay observer in the sense considered in Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H (2001) 75 ALJR 982; [2001] HCA 28. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1108" id="cs12">I note that it is only in a rare and exceptional circumstance that bias on the part of the Tribunal would be established simply by reference to the reasons for decision (see SZHVL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 356) , and on the material before the court, the fact that the Tribunal raised with the applicant at the commencement of the hearing the general issue of her credibility and thereafter particular concerns about the credibility of aspects of her claims is not such as to establish either actual bias in the sense of predetermination or, from the perspective of the appropriately informed lay observer, that the decision-maker might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to resolution of the issue before it. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1088" id="cs13">In regard to the claim of bias, the applicant provides the court with no particulars. He seems to be saying that because the Tribunal did not believe either himself or his witnesses, it must be biased. In SZHVL v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 356 McKerracher J said at 17: "It is clear that an allegation of bias must be distinctly made and proven: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legend (2001) 205 CLR 507 at [69] per Gleeson CJ and Gummow J. It would be a rare and extreme circumstance that bias on the part of the Tribunal would be established simply by reference to the reasons produced by the Tribunal: SCAA v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCA 668 at [38] per von Doussa J.
In Minister for Immigration v MZXPA [2008] FCA 185 Sundberg J said at [14]:

 "An informed and instructed hypothetical person would also know that the Tribunal is an inquisitorial body, and is not required uncritically to accept an applicant's claims: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo [1997] HCA 22 ; (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 984" id="cs14">When one considers the Tribunal reasons for decision this is not a case in which it has been established that the Tribunal's fact finding was conducted in such a manner as to lead to a reasonable apprehension of bias in the sense considered by Allsop J in NADH of 2001 and Others v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 214 ALR 264 ; [2004] FCAFC 328. The fact that the Tribunal did not accept the applicant's claim that he was a Falun Gong practitioner is not such as to establish either actual or apprehended bias. I note in that respect that only in a rare and exceptional case would bias on the part of the Tribunal be established simply by reference to the Tribunal reasons for decision (see SZHVL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 356). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 927" id="cs15">Finally, the applicant made a late plea that the Tribunal should have telephoned the witnesses whose evidence it was not prepared to accept. This is a claim that the Tribunal should have made inquiries but it does not pass the test set out in Minister for Immigration v Lee [2007] FCA 138 , which would only make this an obligation where the information is on a critical issue and is readily available and centrally relevant. Otherwise, there is no general duty to inquire; SZHVL v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 356 ; Seyfarth v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 1713 , MIMIA v SGLB (2004) 207 ALR 12. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 789" id="cs16">The applicant also claimed that there was a denial of natural justice and apprehended bias. There is nothing in the material before the Court to establish actual or apprehended bias either arising from the Tribunal's account of the manner in which it conducted the hearing or from the Tribunal reasons for decision. Insofar as the applicant relies on the Tribunal reasons for decision, it would only be in rare and extreme circumstances that bias on the part of the Tribunal would be established simply by reference to the reasons produced by the Tribunal (see SZHVL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 356). This is not a case in which it can be said that the fact finding was conducted in a manner which could give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias as considered in NADH of 2001 and Others v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 328 ; (2004) 214 ALR 264. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 517" id="cs17">It is well established that it is a rare and extreme case in which bias on the part of the Tribunal will be established simply by reference to the reasons produced by the Tribunal (see SZHVL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 356 and SCAA v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 668 at [38] ). This is not such a case. The fact that the Tribunal considered itself bound to make the decision that it did on the basis of the opinion of the RMOC, is not evidence of bias or such as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. It did not simply accept the opinion. It considered whether the RMOC applied the wrong test. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 279" id="cs18">By consent, paragraphs 1-9 and 19 of the affidavit were admitted into evidence on the hearing of the application, essentially as matters uncontested and going to what was before the Tribunal on the hearing of the application before it. [45] The remaining paragraphs of the affidavit were not sought to be admitted into evidence. Going, as those paragraphs did, to factual issues which were matters for the Tribunal to determine on the merits, the remaining paragraphs would not have been admissible in any event. [46] Jurisdictional error
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 348" id="cs19">Insofar as this ground may be seen as intending to assert actual or apprehended bias (notwithstanding that there was no clear allegation in that respect) neither actual or apparent bias is made out on the material before the Court in the sense considered in Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H [2001] HCA 28 ; (2001) 75 ALJR 982 and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507. As was stated in SZHVL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 356 at [17] : It would be a rare and extreme circumstance that bias on the part of the Tribunal would be established simply by reference to the reasons produced by the Tribunal. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 256" id="cs20">Nor is apprehended bias established from the objective perspective of the appropriately informed, fair-minded lay observer. See Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H (2001) 75 ALJR 982 and NADH of 2001 and Others v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 328 ; (2004) 214 ALR 264. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims. The fact of adverse finding is not, in itself, indicative of bias (see SZHVL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 356 at [17] ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 93" id="cs21">[22] Certainly, the Tribunal's findings are not such as to give rise to an apprehension of bias. It is only in a rare and exceptional case that bias could be established on the part of the Tribunal simply by reference to its reasons. [23] This is not such a case. Nor do the Tribunal's findings give rise to any issue regarding compliance with s 425 of the Migration Act : a second hearing was held, at which the presiding member squarely put to the Applicant his opinion of the Applicant's answers to questions and the inference that would follow. [24] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1715" id="cs22">It is only in a rare and exceptional case that bias could be established on the part of the Tribunal simply by reference to its reasons (see SZHVL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 356 at [17] per McKerracher J). This is not such a case. The findings of the Tribunal were open to it on the material before it. In so far as the applicant's disagreement with the Tribunal's findings seeks merits review, merits review is not available in this Court. This ground is not made out. Issues arising out of the conduct of the Tribunal hearing are discussed below. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1691" id="cs23">In SZHVL v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2008] FCA 356 McKerracher J says at [17], "As to the allegations of bias in the written submissions, I would not permit this matter to be raised on the appeal. It was not argued in the application for review by the Federal Magistrates Court nor was it included as a ground of appeal in the appeal to this Court. It is clear that an allegation of bias must be distinctly made and proven: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 at [69] per Gleeson CJ and Gummow J. It would be a rare and extreme circumstance that bias on the part of the Tribunal would be established simply by reference to the reasons produced by the Tribunal: SCAA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 668 at [38] per von Doussa J. See also SBBF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 358 at [16] per Tamberlin, Mansfield and Jacobson JJ. " </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1697" id="cs24">7 The primary judge also correctly dismissed the apprehension of bias allegation. As the primary judge observed: - (i) the evidence does not include a transcript or tape of the proceedings before the Tribunal, (ii) it will be a rare case in which an apprehension of bias can be established by reference only to the Tribunal's reasons for decision (citing SZHVL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 356 at [17] ), and (iii) the function of the Tribunal as an inquisitorial body must also be kept in mind (citing Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v MZXPA (2008) 100 ALD 312 ; [2008] FCA 185 at [12] --- [14]). The primary judge thus concluded that the second ground had to be dismissed. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1593" id="cs25">I note, as stated in SZHVL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 356 , that only in a rare and extreme circumstance would bias on the part of the Tribunal be established simply by reference to the reasons produced by the Tribunal. It is not made out in this case by those reasons or by the Tribunal proceeding in the manner that it did under s.426A of the Act. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1408" id="cs26">The applicant appealed, and pursued other arguments before McKerracher J. The appeal was dismissed on 18 March 2007 (see SZHVL v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 356). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1108" id="cs27">"

In advising the applicant that it was his responsibility to obtain the information, the Tribunal was doing no more than indicating to the applicant that it was his responsibility to advance his own case, a fundamental pillar of the Tribunal system: Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration (2003) 197 ALR 389 at [78]; Applicant S214/2003 v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCAFC 166 at [26] . Whilst it is accepted that in certain circumstances, the Tribunal may have a duty to inquire, this is only required where the information relates to a critical issue and is readily available and centrally relevant: Minister for Immigration v Le [2007] FCA 1318 , Prasad v Minister for Immigration [1985] FCA 47 ; (1985) 65 ALR 549. There is no general duty to inquire: SZHVL v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 356 ; Minister for Immigration v SGLB [2004] 207 ALR 12 ; Seyfarth v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 1713. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1092" id="cs28">The applicant filed a written submission with this court on 8 July 2008. It follows the amended application and does not, to my mind, need further comment. Before me today the applicant said that the Tribunal did not take any action to verify his claims from Pakistan. I think what the applicant meant was that the Tribunal had not conducted its own inquiries. As the applicant has not explained what information it was that the Tribunal might have obtained from Pakistan, it is difficult for me to say that it had failed to obtain information on a critical issue where such information was readily available and centrally relevant: Minister for Immigration v Le [2007] FCA 1318. The fact is there is no general duty to inquire on the part of the Tribunal: SZHVL v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 356 , Seyfarth v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 1713 , VCAK of 2002 v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 459 ; Minister for Immigration v SGLB [2004] 207 ALR 12. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 880" id="cs29">The applicant has produced neither a transcript of the hearing nor a tape and the court only has the Tribunal's record to rely on. In SZHVL v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 356 McKerracher J held at 17:
"It is clear that an allegation of bias must be distinctly made and proven: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 at [69] per Gleeson CJ and Gummow J. It would be a rare and extreme circumstance that bias on the part of the Tribunal would be established simply by reference to the reasons produced by the Tribunal: SCAA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 668 at [38] per von Doussa J. See also SBBF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 358 at [16] per Tamberlin, Mansfield and Jacobson JJ. "
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 51 Original document rule abolished</title>
<title id="l2">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 56 Relevant evidence to be admissible</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1234">i have inspected the six documents that were said to relate to the iron filings claim. my inspection of awb's documents revealed a further four documents that fall within this category and are still the subject of a privilege claim. i am satisfied that these 10 documents are not privileged, as the documents were brought into existence in furtherance of an improper and dishonest purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1234">inflating the prices of contracts a1670 and a1680 so as to extract payments out of the united nations' escrow account that would then be utilised, in part, to satisfy a compensation claim by gbi. the evidence establishes to the requisite standard that the transaction was deliberately and dishonestly structured by awb and gbi so as to misrepresent the true nature and purpose of the trucking fees and to work a trickery on the united nations. it would be contrary to public policy for the privilege to enure in communications of this kind.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 571">the case concerns a document entitled 'cole inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 571">draft statement of contrition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 571">andrew lindberg.' the document became exhibit 665 in the commission of inquiry which is being conducted by commissioner cole ('the inquiry') under the royal commissions act 1902 ('rca').</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1247">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1247">application for access pursuant to s 263 of the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1247">matter remitted from a full court of the federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1247">documents prepared by non-agent third party on the client's instructions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1247">whether documents prepared for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1247">whether certain documents privileged in whole or in part on the ground that the nature of legal advice sought or given might be inferred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 337">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 337">document prepared by the appellant as an aide-memoire before consultation with a person who was a foreign lawyer but who also had other capacities in his relationship with the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 337">whether the appellant proved that the dominant purpose of creating the document or any part thereof was for the obtaining of legal advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 337">privilege on the facts not made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 337">place of foreign lawyers in considering legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 337">discussion of the scope of legal professional privilege where a document is created for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice but is not itself the communication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">esso australia resources limited v the commissioner of taxation  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">whether test for privilege is "dominant purpose" test or "sole purpose" test.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">client legal privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">test for</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">whether "dominant purpose or sole purpose".  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">influence on common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">evidence act 1995</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">applicable in three australian jurisdictions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">whether enactments affect development of common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">significance of non-enactment in other jurisdictions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">relevance (if any) of act to application to review past authority of high court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">stay of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">pending special leave application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">applicable principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">non-determination of substantive application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">need for special circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">extraordinary nature of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">special rules for stay of orders designed to protect public</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">sequestration order in bankrupt's estate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">stay refused.   bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">special leave application to high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">application for stay of orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">effect on tenure of councillor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">in local government authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">relevance of interests of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">stay refused.   local government</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">elected councillor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">disqualification from office by reason of bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">application for stay pending special leave application to high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.21">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">effect of legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.22">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">interests of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.23">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.24">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">stay refused.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1989] FCA 125">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1989] FCA 125">access to premises and documents under s.263 of assessment act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1989] FCA 125">whether legal professional privilege overridden by s.263</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1989] FCA 125">commissioner of taxation v. citibank limited (ng1244/88) followed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1989] FCA 125">privilege in relation to solicitors' trust accounts discussed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1989] FCA 125">whether decision to exercise right under s.263 was unreasonable.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1979] FCA 33">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1979] FCA 33">discovery and inspection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1979] FCA 33">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1979] FCA 33">inspection by court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1979] FCA 33">principles applicable to consideration of claim of legal professional privilege discussed. the applicant objected to the production of certain documents listed in its affidavit of discovery on the ground of legal professional privilege. on the respondent's application for inspection,</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1976] HCA 63">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1976] HCA 63">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1976] HCA 63">production of document for inspection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1976] HCA 63">privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1976] HCA 63">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1976] HCA 63">report to department of public health on injury received by inmate of psychiatric centre</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1976] HCA 63">report obtained inter alia with intention of forwarding it to legal adviser if proceedings instituted against commission for damages for default.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1235">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1235">application for sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1235">whether intention to defeat or delay creditors by remaining outside of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1235">evidence from which intent may be inferred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1235">debtors' departing and remaining out of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1235">debtors' children moving out of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1235">debtors' remaining out of australia with knowledge of assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1235">recovery action against debtors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1235">debtors' sale of matrimonial home</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1235">debtors' relocation of furniture and effects</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1235">debtors' refusal to provide contact details</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1235">necessary consequences of debtors' acts.  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1235">jurisdictional connection with australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1235">whether debtors ordinarily resident in australia at time of act of bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1235">whether debtors had a dwelling house in australia at time of act of bankruptcy.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.15">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1235">debtors affidavits previously ruled admissible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.16">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1235">ongoing unexplained unavailability of debtors for cross-examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.17">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1235">weight to be given to affidavits.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.18">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1235">inferences able to be drawn where ongoing unexplained unavailability of debtors for cross-examination.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 7">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 7">application for sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 7">whether prima facie case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 7">remaining out of australia with intent to defeat or delay creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 7">necessary intent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 7">intent to be established by inference where no direct evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 7">ordinarily resident in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 7">dwelling house in australia.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 7">mareva type order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">citing from="[2008] FMCA 7">power to make</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">citing from="[2008] FMCA 7">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">citing from="[2008] FMCA 7">arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">citing from="[2008] FMCA 7">demonstrated risk of asset dissipation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.13">citing from="[2008] FMCA 7">travel overseas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.14">citing from="[2008] FMCA 7">remaining out of country</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.15">citing from="[2008] FMCA 7">transfer of money.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.16">citing from="[2008] FMCA 7">service of creditors petition and other documents out of the jurisdiction.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 88">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 88">dominant purpose at time of creation, not communication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 88">copies of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 88">insufficiency of evidence of creation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 88">need for focused and specific evidence to ground privilege claim</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1235" id="cs0">[24] Edwards' Affidavit, 15/11/2007, paras.4-15 and annexures NGE 1 and 2; Zafiriou's Affidavit, 30/11/20007, paras.12-14, 17-18 and 25 and annexures AZ 14, 18-19 and 23. [25] Zafiriou's Affidavit, 30/11/2007, para.21. The first instance judgment of RD Nicholson J is Barnes v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2007) 64 ATR 553 ; [2007] FCA 3 ; and on appeal, see Barnes v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2007) 242 ALR 601 ; (2007) 67 ATR 284 ; [2007] FCAFC 88 (" Barnes Appeal "). [26] Zafiriou's Affidavit, 30/11/2007, annexure AZ 21. [27] "ATO".</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 7" id="cs1">Under s.309(2) of the Bankruptcy Act the discretion conferred is unfettered but not to be exercised lightly. The Court must be satisfied that: abnormal difficulty exists in effecting personal service of the creditors petition on the Respondents; and there is a reasonable probability that the Respondents will be informed of the petition as a result of the form of service identified. [41]  [6] "ATO". [7] Access was obtained pursuant to s.263 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (" Income Tax Assessment Act "). A dispute ensued concerning client-legal professional privilege in respect of certain of those documents: see Barnes v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 3 and Barnes v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCAFC 88 delivered on 9 January 2007 and 22 August 2007, the Respondents being the unsuccessful parties in those cases. [8] Again pursuant to s.263 of the Income Tax Assessment Act . [9] Bankruptcy Act , s.44(1)(a) and (b).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCAFC 88" id="cs2">2 After noting that there was an absence of any analysis of, or specific evidence pertaining to, individual documents over which privilege was being asserted, the primary judge examined each of the documents and ruled against the privilege claim in respect of all of them on the ground that each document provided to him was a copy of another document (the original of which remained in the possession of Mr Calder, the Australian solicitor for the appellants) and thus there was no evidence of the dominant purpose for which these copies were brought into existence: Barnes v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 3 at [28] - [40]. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 135 General discretion to exclude evidence</title>
<title id="l2">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l3">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 263 Access to books etc.</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[1972] HCA 51">shipping and navigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[1972] HCA 51">salvage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[1972] HCA 51">salvage reward</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[1972] HCA 51">danger to salved vessel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[1972] HCA 51">immobilization of vessel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[1972] HCA 51">loss of use to owners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[1972] HCA 51">relevance to salvage services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[1972] HCA 51">voluntary nature of services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[1972] HCA 51">effect of agreement between owners of vessels upon right of master and crew to salvage reward</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[1972] HCA 51">consent of master of salved vessel to salvage service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[1972] HCA 51">factors relevant to assessment of reward.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[1972] HCA 51">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[1972] HCA 51">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[1972] HCA 51">admiralty jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[1972] HCA 51">payment into court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[1972] HCA 51">salvage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[1972] HCA 51">apportionment between claimants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[1972] HCA 51">rules of the high court, 0. 23, r. 6 (2).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 313">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 313">application to re-open and set aside judgment in reliance on unconscionable conduct claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 313">alleged procedural unfairness/irregularity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 313">alleged misapprehension of principles of law/pleadings/facts going to question of acquiescence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 313">motion for leave to re-open dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 313">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 313">multiple issues in proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 313">unsuccessful plaintiffs sought departure from general rule that costs follow the event and apportionment of costs for separate issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 313">no disentitling conduct on the part of the defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 313">defendant did not improperly pursue issues on which she failed but which may well have been considered to have prospects of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 313">defendant's unsuccessful claims were relevant to an understanding of other matters in issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 313">no apportionment of costs referable to separate issues in the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 115">shipping</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 115">salvage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 115">appeal from award of salvage reward</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 115">discretionary nature of award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 115">role of appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 115">whether primary judge erred in exercising discretion in fixing reward</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 115">whether failed to take into account degree of risk of global and of local failure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 115">sufficiency of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 115">whether potential liability to third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 115">relevance of costs and actual expenses of salvage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 115">whether judge used actual costs and expenses as benchmark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 115">whether value of services depends critically upon the potential losses that are avoided</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 115">whether judge took correct approach to value</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 115">encouragement of reward</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 115">proof of beneficial ownership</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] NSWSC 313" id="cs0">111 Mr Faulkner relies on the usual rule that costs should follow the event. He emphasises that Dr Monks has been wholly successful in defending the proceedings. He submits that there has been no disentitling conduct on Dr Monks' part and that it was reasonable for her to raise the defence of illegality in the circumstances of the case. I agree. I also take into account the fact that the discretion to apportion costs is one to be exercised only in the most exceptional of circumstances: Trade Practices Commission v Nicholas Enterprises Pty Limited (No 3) (1979) 42 FLR 213. As noted above, it has been said that a court should be mindful not to discourage litigants from canvassing all material issues for fear of an adverse costs order. Reliance was placed by Mr Faulkner on Stena Rederi Aktiblag v Austal Ships Sales Pty Limited [2006] FCA 1141 and Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4 at 12.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCAFC 115" id="cs1">1 This appeal concerns the reward for salvage fixed by Tamberlin J in favour of the appellants at AUD850 000 ( United Salvage Pty Ltd v Louis Dreyfus Armateurs SNC [2006] FCA 1141). The first appellant is an international salvage operator; the second appellant the owner of the tug the 'Tom Tough' and the third appellant the owner of the tugs the 'Wistari' and the 'Kuttabul' . The 'Tom Tough' and the 'Wistari' are salvage capable tugs. The three tugs were involved in the provision of salvage services to the ship La Pampa at Gladstone Harbour, Queensland on 27 March 2002. The appellants ('the salvors') contend that the reward is inadequate and results from errors as to facts and as to the criteria to be applied in assessing a reward.
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMIRALTY ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMIRALTY ACT 1988 - SECT 1 Short title [see Note 1]</title>
<title id="l2">ADMIRALTY ACT 1988 - SECT 2 Commencement [see Note 1]</title>
<title id="l3">ADMIRALTY ACT 1988 - SECT 4 Maritime claims</title>
<title id="l4">ADMIRALTY ACT 1988 - SECT 9 Admiralty jurisdiction in personam</title>
<title id="l5">ADMIRALTY ACT 1988 - SECT 15 Right to proceed in rem on maritime liens etc.</title>
<title id="l6">LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR MARITIME CLAIMS ACT 1989 </title>
<title id="l7">LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR MARITIME CLAIMS ACT 1989 - SECT 6 Applied provisions to have force of law</title>
<title id="l8">NAVIGATION ACT 1912 </title>
<title id="l9">NAVIGATION ACT 1912 - SECT 315 Certain provisions of Salvage Convention to have force of law</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l11">International Convention on Salvage, 1989 [1998] ATS 2 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 157">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 157">tax exempt income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 157">consultancy and management fee stipulated by agreement between head contractor and australian-based engineering company and its director (the appellant)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 157">fee paid to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 157">consultancy work largely performed by appellant in nigeria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 157">appellant also subsequently employed as plant manager by head contractor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 157">whether consultancy and management fee constituted "foreign earnings derived by the person from foreign service"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 157">nature of relationship between head contractor and appellant before appellant became plant manager</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 157">whether that of employer and employee.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 45">peters (wa) ltd v petersville ltd  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 45">restraint of trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 45">sale of business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 45">appellant manufactured and sold ice cream products in western australia under the "peters" marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 45">respondents manufactured and sold ice cream products under the "pauls" marks nationally and under the "peters" marks in every state except western australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 45">sale of respondents' western australian ice cream business to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 45">sale agreement provided that the appellant be granted the exclusive right and licence to use the "pauls" marks in western australia in return for percentage royalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 45">sale agreement contained covenant restraining respondents from selling ice cream products in western australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 45">restraint coextensive with duration of licensing arrangements but extended to ice cream products to which licensing arrangements not applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 45">whether restraint is one to which the common law restraint of trade doctrine applies.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 45">restraint of trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2001] HCA 45">circumstances in which the restraint of trade doctrine does not apply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2001] HCA 45">whether "sterilisation of capacity test" should be adopted in australia.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2001] HCA 45">restraint of trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2001] HCA 45">development of common law respecting restraint of trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2001] HCA 45">considerations of public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2001] HCA 45">relationship between doctrine of "restraint of trade" and trade practices act 1974 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">summary power to terminate action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">jurisdiction under rule of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">high court rules, o. 26, r. 18.  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">use for services of commonwealth or state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"authority of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">commissioner for railways</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">construction of carriages for use in state railway system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"services of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">written authority to use invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">when contract itself sufficient authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">patents act 1952-1960 (cth), ss. 125, 132*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">injury by accident arising out of or in course of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">death of worker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">negligence of employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">option of dependants to apply for compensation or take other proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">award of compensation obtained by widow on behalf of herself and children</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">effect of award as barring claim by dependants under lord campbell's act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">workers' compensation acts 1928</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">1946 (no. 3806</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">no. 5128) (vict.)*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">wrongs act 1928 (no. 3807) (vict.), part iii.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">the 1946 workers' compensation rules, rr. 8, 81.*  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">supreme court (vict.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">dismissal of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">rules of the supreme court (vict.), order xxv., rr. 2, 4.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l1">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 15AB Use of extrinsic material in the interpretation of an Act</title>
<title id="l2">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 51 Regulations</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 47 Control of a body corporate's board</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 53 Affairs of a body corporate</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 232 Grounds for Court order</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 461 General grounds on which company may be wound up by Court</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1925" id="cs0">5 I mention, without pausing to discuss, the other cases to which I was referred: Cycles & Wheelman Pty Ltd v Beltech Corporation Ltd (1988) 80 ALR 279 ; Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Pauls Ltd [2002] FCA 71 ; Ogawa v Reynolds [2006] FCA 384 ; (2006) 229 ALR 655 ; Baxendale's Vineyard Pty Ltd v Geographical Indications Committee [2007] FCA 22 ; (2007) 156 FCR 444 ; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Terania Pty Ltd [2007] ATPR 42-173 ; Consolidated Byrnes Holdings Ltd v Hardel Investments Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 873 ; First National Group of Independent Real Estate Agents Ltd v Elyod Investments Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1260. I have considered each of these cases.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>