Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">szbyr v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants were refused a visa under s 36(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants gave a statutory declaration to the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a visa partly on the basis of discrepancies between the statutory declaration and the appellants' oral evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief was available to the appellants.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">s 424a of the act , read with s 441a , requires that an applicant be given written notice of particulars of any information that would be a reason or a part of the reason for affirming a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether s 424a applied to the appellants' statutory declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">temporal scope of s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal breached s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether "information" included discrepancies or inadequacies in previously submitted evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "reason, or a part of the reason".  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">certiorari and mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">impact of discretionary considerations governing availability of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief should be denied on discretionary grounds for lack of a convention nexus.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 737">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 737">notices under s151aka trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 737">discovery sought of internal documents on which decisions to issue notices based</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 737">allegations of deficiencies in notices and statutory procedures</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 737">determined by construction of notices and statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 737">allegations that commission could not have considered material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 737">not require discovery of material on which decision based</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 737">allegation that commission did not consider material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 737">no factual basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 737">alleged denial of procedural fairness as pleaded not give right to documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 737">discovery not ordered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">applicant veal of 2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal reviewed an unsolicited letter received by the department of immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs, which made allegations against the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal did not inform the appellant of the existence of the letter or its contents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal affirmed decision under review and said that in reaching its decision it gave no weight to the letter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">whether procedural fairness required the tribunal to inform the appellant of the existence of the letter or its contents.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 189">statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 189">delegated legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 189">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 189">whether cl 5(1)(k) identified "specified behaviour" as required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 189">whether ministerial determination inconsistent with or repugnant to empowering act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 189">use of the term "has a meaning affected by"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 189">whether extended definition of "misbehaviour" in cl 5(1)(k) of ministerial determination so broad as to lack reasonable proportionality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 189">whether cl 5(1)(k) contravened racial discrimination act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 189">whether cl 5(1)(k) should be severed rather than read down  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 189">decision by minister to suspend atsic commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 189">meaning of "misbehaviour"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 189">relationship to duties and requirements of atsic commissioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 189">whether failure to take into account a relevant consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 189">whether jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 535">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 535">leave sought to amend defence after close of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 535">amendments sought opposed by applicants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 535">fresh issue raised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 535">interests of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 535">prejudice to parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 535">efficient and proper conduct of civil litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 535">general principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 535">responsibility of parties to ensure that litigation not proceed on misconceptions or apparent false assumptions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">project blue sky inc  ors v australian broadcasting authority  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">reconciliation of conflicting provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">intention of legislature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">presumption that provisions intended to achieve consistent goals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">leading and subordinate provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">grammatical meaning and legal meaning.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">acts done in breach of a condition regulating a statutory power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">mandatory and directory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">purpose-based test.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">standard prescribing australian content requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether inconsistent with legislative requirement that functions be performed consistently with australia's international obligations.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.17">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.18">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.19">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.20">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">power to make standards that "relate to ... the australian content of programs"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.21">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether restricted to standards conferring preferential treatment.  trade law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.22">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australia new zealand closer economic relations trade agreement.  broadcasting services act 1992 (cth), ss 3 , 122 , 158, 160.  broadcasting services (transitional provisions and consequential amendments) act 1992 (cth), s 21.  tasker v fullwood [1978] 1 nswlr 20 at 23-24 applied.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">delegated legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">family law rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">o 24 r 1(8) and (9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">inadmissibility of evidence as to anything said in conference</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">rule-making power vested in judges of family court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">scope of rule-making power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">"practice and procedure" of family court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">consistency with family law act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">matters arising under family law act 1975 (cth).   family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">conference</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">inadmissibility of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">inconsistency with act.   constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">judicial power of commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">family law rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.15">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">o 36a r 5(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.16">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">time limit of seven days on application for review of exercise by registrar of delegated powers of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.17">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">whether effective supervision and control by family court over exercise of delegated powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.18">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">validity of time limit for review.   statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.19">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">delegated legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.20">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">family law rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.21">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">severance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.22">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">substantial purpose and effect of impugned provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.23">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">acts interpretation act 1901 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">criminal justice commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">requirement to report to parliamentary committee, speaker of legislative assembly and minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">report on gaming machine concerns and regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">recommendation to exclude certain persons from gaming machine industry in state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">no opportunity given to answer matters raised in reports</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">whether duty of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">whether right or interest adversely affected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">legitimate expectation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">criminal justice act 1989 (q.), ss 2.1(1), 2.14, 2.15, 2.18, 3.17, 3.21(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">gaming machine act 1991 (q.), s. 6.16(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">review of reconsideration of primary decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">change in law between primary decision and reconsideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">whether accrued rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">operation of acts interpretation act 1904</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">fisheries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">grant of prawn fishing licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">plan of management</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">statutory instrument</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">effect of amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.13">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">proper construction.  fish and fisheries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.14">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">fishing boat licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.15">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">endorsement to fish for prawns in joseph bonaparte gulf</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.16">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">plan of management</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.17">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">legal effect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.18">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">instrument under act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.19">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">application of acts interpretation act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.20">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">effect of amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.21">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">accrued rights arising from applications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.22">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">whether intended to override accrued rights.  statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.23">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">instrument made under act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.24">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">application of acts interpretation act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.25">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">whether repeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.26">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">extended definition of repeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.27">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">accrued rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.28">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">whether protected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.29">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">whether contrary intention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.30">cited from="[1992] FCA 84">"substantial financial commitment".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">immigration and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">detention in custody pending deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">arrest and detention of illegal entrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">purpose of deportation order to ensure availability of deportee's evidence in criminal proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">invalidity of order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">whether continued detention justified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">migration act 1958 (cth), s. 39.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">order of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">power to set aside decision and declare rights of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">deportation order set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">whether applicant entitled to declaration that detention unlawful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 16(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">warehouse licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">power to revoke licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">inherent or implied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">whether collector had power to revoke warehouse licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">customs act 1901 (cth.), s. 78</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">acts interpretation act 1901 (cth.), s. 33(3).  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">jurisdiction of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">whether jurisdiction to review decision made without power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth.), ss. 3(3) , 25 (1)(a).  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">whether jurisdiction to review decision made without power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth.), ss. 3(3) , 25 (1)(a).  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.15">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.16">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">"made in the exercise of powers conferred by that enactment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.17">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">meaning of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.18">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth.), ss. 3(3) , 25 (1)(a). this was an appeal from a decision of the administrative appeals tribunal ("the tribunal") setting aside a decision of the collector of customs, new south wales, to revoke a private warehouse licence issued to the respondent subject to the provisions of the customs act 1901 (cth.), the regulations made thereunder and subject to conditions specified on the back of the written licence. the tribunal held that it possessed jurisdiction and made an order setting aside the purported revocation on the ground that the power of revocation which the collector purported to exercise did not exist.  held: per bowen c.j. and smithers j., deane j. dissenting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.19">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">the appeal should be dismissed because: (1) the phrase "made in the exercise of powers conferred by that enactment" in s. 25(1)(a) of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth.) properly construed means in purported exercise of powers conferred by the enactment.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1971] HCA 40">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1971] HCA 40">powers of the commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1971] HCA 40">law requiring certain agreements between trade competitors to be registered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1971] HCA 40">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1971] HCA 40">whether with respect to foreign corporations or trading or financial corporations formed within the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1971] HCA 40">general provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1971] HCA 40">whether to be construed distributively in relation to constitutional heads of power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1971] HCA 40">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 51 (xx.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1971] HCA 40">trade practices act 1965-1969 (cth), ss. 7, 35, 3 6, 41, 42, 43</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">cited from="[1971] HCA 40">acts interpretation act 1901-1964 (cth), s. 15a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 39">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 39">legislative instruments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 39">need for certainty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 39">cannot incorporate material "from time to time"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 39">remittal of proceeding to administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 39">whether it should be differently constituted  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 39">notice of contention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1640">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1640">severance of invalid from valid terms of a final determination made under s 152cp of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1640">application for judicial review succeeds in respect of one aspect of final determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1640">whether entire determination or only part of it should be set aside and remitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1436">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1436">telecommunications access regime under pt xic of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1436">access disputes between three access seekers and carrier (telstra corporation ltd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1436">telstra)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1436">australian competition and consumer commission (accc) arbitrating disputes under div 8 of pt xic</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1436">accc makes final determination under s 152cp</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1436">telstra challenges final determinations on judicial review grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1436">statutory list of mandatory relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1436">whether one or more should be given priority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1436">exhortatory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 1436">whether final determinations invalid because period exceeded period of declaration of line sharing service as a declared service trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 1436">telecommunications access regime under pt xic of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 1436">access disputes between three access seekers and carrier (telstra corporation ltd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 1436">telstra)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.14">citing from="[2008] FCA 1436">australian competition and consumer commission (accc) arbitrating disputes under div 8 of pt xic</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.15">citing from="[2008] FCA 1436">accc makes final determination under s 152cp</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.16">citing from="[2008] FCA 1436">telstra challenges final determinations on judicial review grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.17">citing from="[2008] FCA 1436">statutory list of mandatory relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.18">citing from="[2008] FCA 1436">whether one or more should be given priority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.19">citing from="[2008] FCA 1436">exhortatory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.20">citing from="[2008] FCA 1436">whether final determinations invalid because period exceeded period of declaration of line sharing service as a declared service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 644">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 644">application to review decision of migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 644">cancellation of student visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 644">whether condition 8202(3)(a) schedule 8 of the migration regulations ultra vires or invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 644">whether evidence that education provider kept attendance records</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 644">whether failure by tribunal to comply with s.360 of the migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 644">whether tribunal erred in calculating attendance of applicant.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 24">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 24">notice of receipt of extradition request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 24">subsequent amended notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 24">primary judge held both notices invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 24">primary judge erred in holding the minister issuing the second notice failed to consider the matter afresh</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 24">information before the minister included a sufficient statement of the respondent's conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 24">terms of notice severable</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCAFC 39" id="cs0">The extent to which s 46 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) (" Acts Interpretation Act ") permits a " reading down " of an instrument was considered in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (No 3) [2007] FCA 1905 , 99 ALD 268 at 278 to 279. Bennett J there observed:

 Does s 46 of the Interpretation Act apply to the Competition Notice?

 [55] Section 46 of the Interpretation Act is applied as a rule of construction to permit the reading down of instruments.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1640" id="cs1">26 Telstra relies on the decision of Bennett J in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (No 3) [2007] FCA 1905 ; (2007) 99 ALD 268 ( Telstra v ACCC (No 3) ). That case concerned a Pt A competition notice issued by ACCC under s 151AKA of the Act. Section 151AKA(10) provided, relevantly, that ACCC must not issue such a notice unless it had first given the addressee carrier or carriage service provider a written notice inviting it to make a submission to ACCC on the proposal to issue the Pt A competition notice. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1436" id="cs2">237 A final submission put by Telstra is that the public interest in the finality of litigation tells against a grant of leave to reopen, referring to Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (No 3) [2007] FCA 1905 ; (2007) 99 ALD 268 at [16] . However, the circumstances of that case are far removed from those of the present one. Importantly, it was not possible for Request to tender the additional documents during the hearing, and I had not delivered judgment when the notice of motion seeking leave to reopen was filed.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 644" id="cs3">There was no suggestion by the applicant that if condition 8202 was ultra vires the legislation where subclause (3)(b) came into play, that subclause could not be severed, consistent with s.46 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) (see Evans v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 945 and on appeal at [2003] FCAFC 276 ; (2003) 135 FCR 306 and Telstra Corp Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission No 3 [2007] FCA 1905 ; (2007) 99 ALD 268 at [50] per Bennett J). Rather, counsel for the applicant contended generally that condition 8202(3)(a) was analogous to condition 8202(3)(b) and hence invalid or ultra vires on the same basis . However subclause 3(a) does not suffer from the uncertainty or unreasonableness identified in subclause 3(b) by Gyles J at [34] --- [37] in Dai . It has not been established that it compelled compliance by the visa holder with " requirements that were not practicable or certain " ( Dai at [34]). The attendance obligation was imposed on the visa holder provided the pre-requisite or condition precedent that the education provider kept attendance records was met. Compliance was then in the hands of the visa holder, in the sense that achieving the requisite level of attendance was the act of the visa holder. The extent and nature of the requirements that had to be met (attendance for at least 80 per cent of the contact hours scheduled for the specified period) were sufficiently certain, having regard to the definition of contact hours in reg.1.03. Condition 8202(3)(a) is not so " vaguely expressed that either its meaning or its application is a matter of real uncertainty " (cf Kitto J in Television Corporation Ltd v Commonwealth [1963] HCA 30 ; (1963) 109 CLR 59 at 70 and see Dai at [36] per Gyles J). Given that the obligation under condition 8202(3)(a) arises only where an education provider keeps attendance records and that the requisite attendance is expressed as a percentage of total "contact hours" in a specified period (and not as a more vaguely expressed requirement) such condition has not been shown to be uncertain in either expression or operation. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 24" id="cs4">104 However, the debate which is revealed in these authorities has been overtaken by the terms of the amended form of s 46 of the Acts Interpretation Act . That section specifically applies to instruments that are not legislative. It plainly applies to notices under s 16 of the Act. This is supported by the decision in Telstra Corporation Limited v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (No 3) [2007] FCA 1905. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 16 Powers of the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court in respect of applications for order of review</title>
<title id="l3">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l4">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 2 Application of Act</title>
<title id="l5">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 15A Construction of Acts to be subject to Constitution</title>
<title id="l6">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 46 Construction of instruments</title>
<title id="l7">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 22 Determination of matter completely and finally</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 46 Orders and commissions for examination of witnesses</title>
<title id="l11">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l12">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 163A Late lodgement penalty--relevant entities, instalment taxpayers and full self-assessment taxpayers</title>
<title id="l13">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 263 Access to books etc.</title>
<title id="l14">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 264 Commissioner may require information and evidence</title>
<title id="l15">LEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENTS ACT 2003 </title>
<title id="l16">LEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENTS ACT 2003 - SECT 13 Construction of legislative instruments</title>
<title id="l17">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l18">PUBLIC SERVICE ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l19">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l20">INTERPRETATION ACT </title>
<title id="l21">INTERPRETATION ACT - SECT 2 Repeal and savings</title>
<title id="l22">INTERPRETATION ACT - SECT 6A Commencement notices</title>
<title id="l23">INTERPRETATION ACT - SECT 46 Power to authorise another person to exercise power or perform function</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1980] HCA 51">shipping</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1980] HCA 51">sea carriage of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1980] HCA 51">hague rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1980] HCA 51">damage to cargo</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1980] HCA 51">negligent stowing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1980] HCA 51">perils of the sea</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1980] HCA 51">heavy weather</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1980] HCA 51">liability of carrier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1980] HCA 51">overriding obligation to exercise due care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1980] HCA 51">sea-carriage of goods act 1924 (cth), sch., arts. iii, r. 2, iv, r. 2 (c).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">admiralty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">limitation of liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">application under s 25 of the admiralty act 1988 (cth) by shipowner to limit liability under limitation of liability for maritime claims act 1989 (cth) and the convention on limitation of liability for maritime claims 1976 as affected by the 1996 protocol to amend that convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">meaning of "claims arising on any distinct occasion" in arts 2(1)(a) and 6(1) of the convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">arts 6(1)(b) and 11 of the convention permitting shipowner to apply to limit liability for all claims arising on a distinct occasion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">maritime liens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">multiple claims alleged to arise from ship's anchor fouling submarine gas pipeline, ship then going astern, ship later moving ahead, pipeline then fractured, later ship moving astern and further bending pipeline</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">claims by pipeline's owners for repairs, loss of gas and economic loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">consumers of gas claiming economic losses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">longer repair period because of further bending</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">whether the different events causing damage to the pipeline on one or more distinct occasions  admiralty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">construction of international convention given force of law by an act of the parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">construction of convention on limitation of liability for maritime claims 1976 as affected by the 1996 protocol to amend that convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">construction of international conventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">application of principles in vienna convention on the law of treaties of 1969</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">purpose of limitation convention to protect shipowner from financial ruin, encourage investment in shipbuilding, international trade and commerce and provide for limited and certain insurable risks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">unbreakable limitation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">purpose only to limit the liability of shipowner for each separate act, neglect or default from which claims arise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">history of limitation of maritime claims laws and conventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.20">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">use of domestic law precedents  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.21">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.22">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">concurrent evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.23">citing from="[2010] FCA 240">direction that experts in each relevant discipline confer together, without the parties or their lawyers to prepare joint report setting out issues on which they agree and disagree, giving brief reasons for their differences</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 240" id="cs0">In separate proceedings in this Court, Esso and BHP have sued the shipowner for damages in respect of the cost of repair of the pipeline and other alleged losses estimated to exceed $27 million. The cost of repair of the pipeline alone is said to amount to nearly the whole of the value of the ship. Two other plaintiffs, Huntsman Chemical Corporation Pty Ltd and Qenos Pty Ltd, both large consumers of ethane gas supplied from the Altona end of the pipeline, have each begun other proceedings in this Court against the shipowner claiming damages for pure economic loss estimated at $12 million and $27.6 million respectively. A trial of a separate question in the latter proceedings was ordered to determine whether the gas customers' claims were capable of being made subject to a limitation of liability under Art 2 of the Convention. Finkelstein J has found that they are: Qenos Pty Ltd v Ship "APL Sydney" [2009] FCA 1090 ; (2009) 260 ALR 692. And the Port of Melbourne Corporation has sued for damages, or indemnity or contribution but has not yet given an estimate of its claim. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l1">TRAFFIC ACT </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1625">courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1625">judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1625">order entered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1625">whether can be set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1625">unsuccessful party seeking to reopen case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1685">social security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1685">workplace injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1685">payments of sickness benefits, disability support pension and disability support wife pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1685">subsequent judgment requiring payment of arrears of periodic compensation payments and lump sum compensation in respect of injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1685">recoverability of social security payments already made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1685">whether payments pursuant to judgment required to be treated as one lump sum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1685">whether provisions relating to lump sum preclusion periods applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1567">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1567">vexatious litigant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1567">order 21 rule 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1567">whether respondent habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings against the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1567">order made under order 21 rule 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">hire of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">contractual indemnity by hirer against loss caused to owner from use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">action for damages against hirer and owner arising out of use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">notices of contribution between hirer and owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">claim of contribution by owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">apportionment of liability between defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">subsequent action by owner for indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">whether estopped by failure in original action to plead indemnity in defence to the claim for contribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">wrongs act 1958 (vict.) s. 24 (1) (c).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2011] AATA 634">veterans' affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2011] AATA 634">veterans' entitlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2011] AATA 634">disability pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2011] AATA 634">eligible defence service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2011] AATA 634">gout</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2011] AATA 634">diabetes mellitus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2011] AATA 634">chronic gastritis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2011] AATA 634">acute stress disorder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2011] AATA 634">sleep apnoea</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">citing from="[2011] AATA 634">erectile dysfunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">citing from="[2011] AATA 634">carotid arterial disease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">citing from="[2011] AATA 634">cholelithiasis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">citing from="[2011] AATA 634">whether conditions exist</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">citing from="[2011] AATA 634">relationship to service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">citing from="[2011] AATA 634">conditions either do not exist or are not related to service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.15">citing from="[2011] AATA 634">decisions under review varied and affirmed.   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.16">citing from="[2011] AATA 634">implications of applicant's decision not to give evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.17">citing from="[2011] AATA 634">relevance of previous tribunal decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.18">citing from="[2011] AATA 634">nature and extent of tribunal's obligation to inquire.   veterans' entitlement act 1986 ss 70(1), 70(5), 70(7-10), 120(1), 129(2), 120(4), 120b(3), 120b(4)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 833">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 833">vexatious litigant sanction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 833">application pursuant to o 21 r 1 federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 833">orders sought preventing respondent from bringing further proceedings without leave of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 833">whether respondent has instituted vexatious proceedings 'habitually, persistently and without reasonable grounds'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 833">requirements of o 21 r 1 satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 833">exercise of court's discretion not to make an order declined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 833">orders granted  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">citing from="[2011] FCA 833">application for judicial review under s 5(1)(g) administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 on grounds 'that the decision was induced or affected by fraud'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">citing from="[2011] FCA 833">discussion of relevant principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">citing from="[2011] FCA 833">"fraud" bears its plain meaning and so refers to the fraud of any person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">citing from="[2011] FCA 833">decision must be shown to have been actually induced or affected by fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">citing from="[2011] FCA 833">court must be satisfied that the fraud had a material effect on the ultimate decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.13">citing from="[2011] FCA 833">the "fraud" must be a fraud of the decision-maker or on the decision maker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.14">citing from="[2011] FCA 833">the applicant's claim that a fraud was perpetrated on him was not capable of demonstrating a fraud on the decision maker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.15">citing from="[2011] FCA 833">applicant's claims also estopped and not proved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.16">citing from="[2011] FCA 833">application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 799">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 799">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 799">no reasonable prospects of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2009] AATA 853">defence  war</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2009] AATA 853">veterans</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2009] AATA 853">entitlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2009] AATA 853">invalidity service pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2009] AATA 853">gastro oesophageal reflex disease (gord)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2009] AATA 853">whether "defence-cause"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2009] AATA 853">no evidence to connect defence service to disease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2009] AATA 853">decision of repatriation commission restored   practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2009] AATA 853">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">citing from="[2009] AATA 853">former adjudication of matters of record</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">citing from="[2009] AATA 853">anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">citing from="[2009] AATA 853">whether commission estopped from contesting factual findings of the veterans' review board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">citing from="[2009] AATA 853">no anshun estoppel within the ascending hierarchy of merits review   practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">citing from="[2009] AATA 853">disqualification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">citing from="[2009] AATA 853">actual bias or apprehended bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.15">citing from="[2009] AATA 853">disqualification refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 59">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 59">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 59">refusal of application for annulment of sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 59">no error in reasoning of primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 59">dismissed practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 59">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 59">application to adduce further evidence on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 59">did not disclose fresh evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 59">refused practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 59">letter and submissions sent to the court after the hearing and without the court's leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 59">inappropriate to write to the court and make submissions after the hearing without the court's leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2009] AATA 31">social security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2009] AATA 31">previous aat finding of failure to provide information to centrelink</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2009] AATA 31">decision under review by these proceedings was the raising of an overpayment of newstart allowance by failure to declare a distribution of income from a family trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2009] AATA 31">application dismissed as frivolous and vexatious</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2009] AATA 31">direction that applicant not make a subsequent application without leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 174">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 174">review of decisions of social security appeals tribunal and administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 174">finding by administrative appeals tribunal that appellant's application before it was frivolous and vexatious</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 174">allegation of fraud on part of respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 174">preclusion of appellant from re-litigating matters under anshun principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2007] AATA 1085">compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2007] AATA 1085">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2007] AATA 1085">injured in course of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2007] AATA 1085">request for long service leave entitlements whilst receiving compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2007] AATA 1085">respondent failed to respond to request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2007] AATA 1085">no decision, deemed decision or reconsideration for the tribunal to review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2007] AATA 1085">no reviewable decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">citing from="[2007] AATA 1085">tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">citing from="[2007] AATA 1085">application dismissed   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">citing from="[2007] AATA 1085">anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.10">citing from="[2007] AATA 1085">prevents applicant from raising matters not raised in earlier proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.11">citing from="[2007] AATA 1085">vexatious application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.12">citing from="[2007] AATA 1085">application dismissed   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.13">citing from="[2007] AATA 1085">matters not raised in earlier proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.14">citing from="[2007] AATA 1085">power of tribunal to control its own procedures</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.15">citing from="[2007] AATA 1085">application dismissed   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.16">citing from="[2007] AATA 1085">frivolous or vexatious</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.17">citing from="[2007] AATA 1085">application is obviously unsustainable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.18">citing from="[2007] AATA 1085">persistent vexatious applications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.19">citing from="[2007] AATA 1085">present application devoid of merit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.20">citing from="[2007] AATA 1085">direction made under s 42b(1)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 90">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 90">security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 90">appellant appealed from decision requiring him to seek leave before making further applications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 90">matters raised already determined by court.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] AATA 634" id="cs0">In relation to the respondent's contentions, as the respondent acknowledged, on our understanding of the authorities, it is not clearly established that the doctrines of Anshun estoppel and issue estoppel operate in the context of AAT proceedings [100] . However regardless of whether these doctrines are applicable, we accept that s 33 of the AAT Act gives us power to control our own procedures and s 25(4A) gives us power to limit the questions of fact, the evidence and the issues that we consider. It is also well established on the authorities that one consequence of these powers is that we have a discretion as to whether we will entertain or consider again, issues which have already been determined between the same parties by a previous decision of the Tribunal. We also acknowledge that the applicable authorities are to the effect that the Tribunal should general not allow "re-litigation" of issues previously decided, at least in the absence of compelling fresh evidence [101] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 833" id="cs1">The background of this proceeding was helpfully summarised by Weinberg J in Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment  Workplace Relations [2006] FCA 1381 ; (2006) 235 ALR 297 at [14] - [17] : Mr Singh and Ms Kaur sought review of Centrelink's decision of 4 November 1999 on the basis that, although formally married, they had been living separately under one roof from about 1996. On 23 December 1999, Centrelink decided that Mr Singh and Ms Kaur were to be treated as members of a couple. On 21 January 2000, an authorised review officer affirmed the decision of 23 December 1999. The Secretaries rely on the proceedings instituted by Mr Singh dealt with by the following reasons for judgment: Singh v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2000] Unreported V912 of 2000 (Finklestein J); Singh v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2001] FCA 1281 (Beaumont , Kiefel and Hely JJ); Singh v Secretary to the Department of Family and Community Services [2003] FMCA 566 (Hartnett FM); Singh v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2004] FCA 1685 ; (2004) 142 FCR 232 (Gray J); Singh v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (Centrelink) [2005] HCATrans 759 (Hayne and Callinan JJ); Singh v Secretary of Family and Community Services [2005] FCA 1625 (Gray J); Singh v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2006] FCA 189 (Ryan J); Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] FCA 1381 ; (2006) 235 ALR 297 (Weinberg J); Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCAFC 174 (Dowsett , Siopis and Middleton JJ); Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2008] HCASL 224 (Gummow and Kiefel JJ); Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2008] FCA 1061 (Middleton J); Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2008] FCA 1463 (Goldberg J); Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2009] FCAFC 59 (Spender , Lander and Flick JJ); Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2009] HCASL 194 (Gummow and Kiefel JJ).  The background to this proceeding was also helpfully summarised by Weinberg J in [2006] FCA 1381 ; (2006) 235 ALR 297 at [20] - [21] : Following further requests from Mr Singh, Centrelink wrote to him on 22 January 2002 stating that it had reviewed his case and decided not to change its decision to recover a compensation debt of $88,633.34. Mr Singh asked that the matter be referred to an authorised review officer. On 4 February 2002, an authorised review officer informed Mr Singh that he had no power to review the matter as it had already been reviewed by the SSAT, as well as the tribunal itself. Mr Singh then lodged a further application with the SSAT on 19 February 2002. The SSAT decided on 13 May 2002 to again affirm the decision under review. Mr Singh then lodged a further appeal to the tribunal, which on 17 December 2002 affirmed the decision of the SSAT dated 13 May 2002. On 2 January 2003, Mr Singh appealed to the Federal Court seeking to set aside the tribunal's decision of 17 December 2002. On 19 March 2003, I ordered that Mr Singh's application be transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court.  Mr Singh then appealed the AAT decision to the Federal Court. That appeal was dismissed by Weinberg J on 23 October 2006: Singh and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] FCA 1381 ; (2006) 235 ALR 297 at [38] - [56].  The original debt was incurred in the following circumstances which were helpfully summarised by Weinberg J at [8]-[13] in Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment  Workplace Relations [2006] FCA 1381: Mr Singh was born in 1950. He was employed by the Public Transport Corporation from 1983, initially as a tram conductor, and later as a tram driver. On 2 January 1991, Mr Singh suffered a work-related injury, which resulted in an ongoing medical condition.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 799" id="cs2"/>
<sentence from="[2009] AATA 853" id="cs3">It is quite clear that Anshun estoppel can have operation within the Tribunal. So much has been authoritatively determined in Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment  Workplace [6] . There the respondent had made a decision in November 1999 to recover from compensation payments payable to Mr Singh, amounts of social security payments totalling $88,633.34 that had earlier been made to Mr Singh and his spouse. That decision was reviewed internally and by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and this Tribunal (in October 2000).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 59" id="cs4">9 Justice Weinberg dismissed allegations of fraud made by the appellant as lacking substance and on the principle in Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 45 ; (1981) 147 CLR 589: Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] FCA 1381 ; (2006) 95 ALD 569. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] AATA 31" id="cs5">Decisions of that type, that is, to dismiss an application and direct that a person must not without leave of the Tribunal make any subsequent application, would only be made unless it is clear that there is no real question to be tried because litigants are not to be deprived the right to submit genuine controversies for determination (refer decisions summarised in Paramasivam v Randwick City Council [2005] FCA 369 at paragraph 29). A very useful summary of the operation of s 42B of the AAT Act is found in Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] FCA 1381 ( Singh) where at paragraph 49 Weinberg J decided that whilst s 42B of the AAT Act differed from Order 21 of the Federal Court Rules (that is, the Tribunal legislation does not require that the person act habitually and persistently ) it was implicit that a Direction under s 42B(1)(b) will not be lightly made and will normally require some element of habitual or persistent conduct (paragraph 49). At paragraph 50 His Honour decided:

 . . . In accordance with established authority the Tribunal was entitled to have regard to Mr Singh's entire dealings with Centrelink including his numerous applications to have that decision reviewed.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1463" id="cs6">7 The matter before Weinberg J in respect of which he delivered his judgment and made orders on 23 October 2006, Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment  Workplace Relations [2006] FCA 1381 ; (2006) 235 ALR 297 , was an appeal by the applicant from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 3 July 2006 dismissing, as frivolous and vexatious, the applicant's application for review of a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal on 22 March 2006. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal also directed that the applicant not, without leave of the Tribunal, make any future application with respect to recovery of sickness allowance, disability support pension or wife pension paid between 28 October 1991 and 26 October 1999. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCAFC 174" id="cs7">11 This is an appeal by Mohinder Singh from a decision handed down on 23 October 2006 by Weinberg J ( Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] FCA 1381).
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] AATA 1085" id="cs8">As it happens, there is a helpful discussion by Weinberg J. in Singh [16] of the principles that guide the exercise of the discretion. His Honour said:
"... it is implicit in the section that a direction under s 42B(1)(b) will not be lightly made and will normally require some element of habitual or persistent conduct. "
  Even if it were to be assumed (contrary to my view) that there was merit in the matters that the applicant now seeks to agitate, his argument is met by the estoppel discussed in Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd [6] . That this principle applies to this Tribunal is made clear by the decision in Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [7] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 90" id="cs9">1 The appellant has appealed to the Full Court from the decision of Weinberg J given on 23 October 2006: Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] FCA 1381. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 42B Power of Tribunal where a proceeding is frivolous or vexatious</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l5">ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 1985 </title>
<title id="l6">Accident Compensation Act 1985 - SECT 98 Compensation for maims</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 1702">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 1702">insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 1702">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 1702">failure to comply with statutory demands</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">citing from="[2006] FCA 1702">presumption of insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">citing from="[2006] FCA 1702">members of inter-company group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">citing from="[2006] FCA 1702">evidence by common director of financial arrangements within inter-company group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">citing from="[2006] FCA 1702">insufficient to displace presumption</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">citing from="[2006] FCA 1702">winding up orders made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">citing from="[2006] FCA 1702">appointment of liquidators as receivers of assets of trusts of trustee companies</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1702" id="cs0">8 The respondents were represented, on the hearing of the winding up application, by Norman Carey their common director who was given leave to represent them. Mr Carey had applied to strike out the application in August 2006 on the basis that it was invalid for failure to comply with s 459Q of the Act which requires verification, by affidavit, of the currency of the debts at the time of the making of the application. On 16 August 2001 that motion was dismissed --- Australian Securities  Investments Commission v Eastlands Pty Ltd (No 1) [2006] FCA 1101. Other interlocutory orders refusing leave to issue certain subpoenas and requiring ASIC to provide a list of documents in its possession relevant to the question of solvency were made on the same day --- Australian Securities  Investments Commission v Eastlands Pty Ltd (No 2) [2006] FCA 1193. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459S Company may not oppose application on certain grounds</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 13">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 13">judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 13">state court invested with federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 13">state supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 13">state law providing for exercise of part of supreme court's jurisdiction by masters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 13">whether master invested with federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 13">composition of supreme court state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 13">the constitution (63  64 vict.c.12), ss. 71 , 77 (iii)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 13">supreme court act 1980 (n.s.w.), ss. 25, 40, 111, 118</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 13">rules of the supreme court (n.s.w.) pt 60, r. 6.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2007] WAIRComm 334">in the memorandum it was stated that the " first respondent has indicated that it will submit to such order as the court may make ". although this sentence was not grammatically correct given commissioner scott was the named first respondent, it is correct that there had been a submitting appearance filed in the supreme court on behalf of the first respondent to action 2400/2006. in the same document under the heading " hearing " it was stated that " the applicant will move the court at the special appointment listed for 8 february 2007 to grant an order absolute in the first instance for a writ of certiorari, pursuant to order 56 r 1(6) and to, by the same order, pursuant to order 56 r 13, direct that the decision of the first respondent be quashed on the return without further order ". the written submissions contained 30 paragraphs. at the end of the document was the name of counsel, indicating that counsel had prepared the outline of submissions. above the place where counsel's name was typed, there is what appears to be the signature of a solicitor from the firm representing the applicant to action 2400/2006 and the word " per " written in hand. the full bench was later advised that the written submissions were, as represented in the document, prepared by counsel. the full bench was also later advised that counsel had become involved between 6 and 8 december 2006. this was before the appellant's solicitors were engaged. it is also apparent that counsel was retained by the solicitors both in this appeal and action 2400/2006. in paragraphs [7]</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2007] WAIRComm 334">[15], the written submissions set out " the case for relief ". these paragraphs, omitting footnotes, are as follows:</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2007] WAIRComm 334">"7. the decision made by the first respondent on 4 december 2006 was made in excess of jurisdiction.  the claim was referred to the commission, pursuant to s29(1)(b)(ii) of the ir act, on 3 march 2006. the first respondent, purporting to exercise jurisdiction under s23(1) of the ir act, heard the matter on 25 august 2006 and 24 november 2006 before issuing her decision on 4 december 2006: [the affidavit of a solicitor was then cited] the applicant, against whom the claim was brought, was at all material times a trading corporation, within the meaning of the constitution [the affidavits of a solicitor and the operations director of the appellant were then cited] and therefore a constitutional corporation, within the meaning of section 4(1) , and an employer, within the meaning of section 6(1)(a), of the wr act. the ir act is a "state or territory industrial law" within the meaning of section 4(1) of the wr act. subsection 16(1) of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth) (wr act) provides that the wr act applies to the exclusion of a state or territory industrial law so far as it would otherwise apply in relation to an employer as defined in s6(1). section 16 of the wr act was inserted by schedule 1 of the workplace relations amendment (work choices) act 2005 which commenced on 27 march 2006 (the day fixed by proclamation). section 16 of the wr act is effective in excluding state industrial laws even though in some respects, such as the enforcement of contractual entitlements, the commonwealth has failed to enact any corresponding federal law. it is enough that the commonwealth parliament has indicated the relevant field it intends to cover to the exclusion of state law, in this case relations between constitutional corporations and their employees: new south wales v commonwealth of australia [2006] hca 52 ; (2006) 231 alr 1 ; (2006) 156 ir 1 at [367]</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2007] WAIRComm 334">[372]. accordingly, from 27 march 2006, by reason of section 16 of the wr act and s109 of the commonwealth constitution , the ir act, with prescribed exceptions, was excluded insofar as it would otherwise have applied to constitutional corporations and their employees. the claim did not fall within any of the prescribed exceptions so that, from 27 march 2006, the first respondent lacked jurisdiction to continue to hear and determine the matter. " in paragraph [16] of the written submissions, it was contended that although the present issue was not raised during the commission proceedings, as it was one which went to jurisdiction and could not have been cured at the hearing, the applicant was not precluded from taking the point in action 2400/2006. in the next paragraph it was submitted that as a consequence of the " ir act " being excluded in its application to constitutional corporations and their employees, the privative clause in s34(3) of the act did not apply. the submissions then contained the heading " discretionary considerations ", which comprised paragraphs [18]</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2007] WAIRComm 334">[23]. these paragraphs are as follows:</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2007] WAIRComm 334">" 18. the starting point in the consideration of the exercise of discretion is that if it is found the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, certiorari will normally be granted: re carey; ex parte exclude holdings pty ltd and ors [2006] wasca 219 ; bc 200608660 at [129] per martin cj (wheeler ja agreeing); see also re refugee review tribunal; ex parte aala [2000] hca 57 ; (2000) 204 clr 82 at [51]</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2007] WAIRComm 334">[52] per gaudron and gummow jj (gleeson cj agreeing) and at [149] per kirby j where their honours approved the following statement by gibbs cj in r v ross-jones; ex parte green [1984] hca 82 ; (1984) 156 clr 185:</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] WAIRComm 334" id="cs0">The submissions then contained the heading " Discretionary considerations ", which comprised paragraphs [18] --- [23]. These paragraphs are as follows:-
" 18. The starting point in the consideration of the exercise of discretion is that if it is found the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, certiorari will normally be granted: Re Carey; Ex Parte Exclude Holdings Pty Ltd and Ors [2006] WASCA 219 ; BC 200608660 at [129] per Martin CJ (Wheeler JA agreeing); see also Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala [2000] HCA 57 ; (2000) 204 CLR 82 at [51] - [52] per Gaudron and Gummow JJ (Gleeson CJ agreeing) and at [149] per Kirby J where their Honours approved the following statement by Gibbs CJ in R v Ross-Jones; Ex parte Green [1984] HCA 82 ; (1984) 156 CLR 185:

 "If, therefore, a clear case of want or excess of jurisdiction has been made out, and the prosecutor is a party aggrieved, the writ will issue almost as of right, although the court retains its discretion to refuse relief if in all the circumstances that seems the proper course. "
 Here there are no discretionary reasons for withholding relief. There is no other equally efficacious remedy available to the applicant. As a consequence of the IR Act being excluded in its application to constitutional corporations and their employees, the applicant cannot appeal to a Full Bench of the Commission under s49 of the IR Act. Whereas, under s853 of the WR Act, an appeal lies to the Federal Court from a judgment of a state "court" in any matter arising under the WR ACT (sic), whether the Commission is a court for this purpose is an open question: see BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v AMWU [2006] FCA 1181 ; BC200606776 at [23] to [24]. On the other hand in circumstances where:
 (a) There is a clear case for relief;

 (b) The second respondent consents to the proposed orders;

 (c) The first respondent has filed a submitting appearance;

 the making of an order absolute in the first instance is necessary for the advancement of justice to avoid wasted costs and delay. "

 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 </title>
<title id="l1">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l2">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 78B Notice to Attorneys-General</title>
<title id="l3">WORKPLACE RELATIONS AMENDMENT (WORK CHOICES) ACT 2005 </title>
<title id="l4">WORKPLACE RELATIONS REGULATIONS 2006 </title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l6">WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1996 </title>
<title id="l7">WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 16 Act excludes some State and Territory laws</title>
<title id="l8">WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 642 Definitions</title>
<title id="l9">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1979 </title>
<title id="l10">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1979 - SECT 12 </title>
<title id="l11">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1979 - SECT 16 </title>
<title id="l12">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1979 - SECT 34 </title>
<title id="l13">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1979 - SECT 44 </title>
<title id="l14">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1979 - SECT 49 </title>
<title id="l15">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1979 - SECT 85 </title>
<title id="l16">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1979 - SECT 90 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1799">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1799">consideration of the categories of documents which might be made the subject of a list of documents by each party in two proceedings to be heard together</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1799">consideration of issues in relation to an action for threats with a cross-claim for patent infringement and a cross proceeding for revocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1799">consideration of a threats proceeding for registered design infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1799">consideration of infringement questions</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 24">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 24">notice of receipt of extradition request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 24">subsequent amended notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 24">primary judge held both notices invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 24">primary judge erred in holding the minister issuing the second notice failed to consider the matter afresh</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 24">information before the minister included a sufficient statement of the respondent's conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 24">terms of notice severable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 2091">extradition act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 2091">issue of notice under s 16 by attorney-general</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 2091">magistrate's decision under s 19(9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 2091">independent administrative functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 2091">nature of section 21 review by federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 2091">nature of 'review'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 2091">subsequent challenge to s 16 notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 2091">estoppel/abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 191">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 191">appeal against dismissal of application for writ of prohibition and injunctive relief to restrain the execution of a surrender warrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 191">s 23 of extradition act requires the issue of a surrender warrant following a valid surrender determination without any further decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 191">neither communication with the united nations (based upon united nations convention against torture and other cruel and inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment (convention against torture) nor involvement in litigation within australia by person subject to surrender determination was a basis for judicial intervention in relation to the operation of s 23  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 191">whether involvement in australian court proceedings a bar to extradition practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 191">whether proceeding an abuse of process international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 191">effect of convention against torture and international covenant on civil and political rights in extradition proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">extradition request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">notice of receipt of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where two notices have been issued</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where second notice has been issued as a notice amending the first</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where second notice has been issued by a different minister to the first extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">first notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether discretion to issue notice was validly exercised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the statement of the conduct or acts or omissions of the person the subject of the request was sufficient to allow the minister to form the opinion which s 16(2)(a)(ii) of the extradition act 1988 (cth) required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">dual criminality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the minister needed to receive all the material provided by the extradition country in order validly to exercise his function in accordance with law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">relief to be granted in circumstances where notice has been found to be invalid extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">second notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where first notice has been found to be invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where detention of the person the subject of the request has become unlawful under ss 15 and 17 of the extradition act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether minister had power to issue amended notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the minister for justice and customs can exercise powers of attorney-general under s 16 of the extradition act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the statement of the conduct or acts or omissions of the person the subject of the request was sufficient to allow the minister to form the opinion which s 16(2)(a)(ii) of the extradition act required extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where notice of receipt of extradition request has been found to be deficient in respect of certain paragraphs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the notice is wholly or partly invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">possibility of severance of notice under s 46(2) of the acts interpretation act 1901 (cth) administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">division of portfolio responsibilities between two ministers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">effect of division</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.23">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether one minister authorised to exercise powers conferred by statute on the other</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.24">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether s 16 of the extradition act evinces a contrary intention for the purposes of s 19a(1) of the acts interpretation act  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.25">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">both notices deficient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.26">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">severance of portions of either notice not possible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.27">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">both notices wholly invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 33">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 33">notice of receipt of extradition request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 33">invalidity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 33">minister's opinion must be based on mandatory statutory requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 33">requirement for personal knowledge of acts or omissions. administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 33">grounds for judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 33">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 33">wednesbury unreasonableness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 3">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 3">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 3">reviewable decisions and conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 3">hearing of whether person liable for extradition order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 3">nature of review of magistrate's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 3">nature and scope of review of decision under ss 19(1)(d) and 21 of the extradition act 1988 (cth)  extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 3">extradition to and from foreign states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 3">extradition to foreign states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 3">hearing of whether person liable for extradition order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 3">nature of review of magistrate's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 3">nature and scope of review of decision under ss 19(1)(d) and 21 of the extradition act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 3">meaning of reasonable time in which to prepare for the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 3">whether conditions of remand a relevant consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 3">double criminality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">application to strike out statement of claim and cross-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">proper approach to meaning of "reasonable prospect of success" in s 31a of the federal court act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">requirement of actual knowledge of falsity of representation for accessory liability under s 75b of the trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">application allowed in part</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">application for summary dismissal of proceedings under section 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">test to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">assignment of choses in action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">where claim brought by person claiming to be assignee under a contract for sale of a business to enforce rights of assignor in contract and under section 51ac and s 52 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">where assignor company now deregistered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether purported assignment effective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether statutory claim capable of assignment  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether claim for damages under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) capable of assignment  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages under s 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) not capable of assignment; pleadings fundamentally flawed and disclosed no reasonable prospect of success; proceedings summarily dismissed  words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">"no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">vasiljkovic v commonwealth of australia  extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">plaintiff remanded in custody pending determination of eligibility for surrender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">arrest warrant for plaintiff in force in croatia on charge of certain war crimes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">arrest warrant constitutes relevant "supporting documentation" for purposes of s 19 of the extradition act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">statement made by croatian investigating authorities of a well-founded suspicion that plaintiff committed the offences alleged, including recitation of evidence provided by witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">croatia declared to be an "extradition country" by extradition (croatia) regulations 2004 (cth), regs 3, 4</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether pt ii of the extradition act is a valid law of the commonwealth.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">plaintiff detained pending determination of eligibility for surrender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">extradition act , s 19(1) provided power of an administrative nature to conduct proceedings to determine eligibility for surrender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">extradition act , s 19(5) provided that the person to whom the proceedings relate is not entitled to adduce evidence to contradict allegations that the person has engaged in the conduct constituting an extradition offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">no prima facie evidence requirement applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether pt ii of the extradition act is invalid to the extent that it purports to confer a power to deprive an australian citizen of liberty otherwise than in exercise of the judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether pt ii of the extradition act when read together with the extradition (croatia) regulations is invalid to the extent that it purports to confer a power to deprive an australian citizen of liberty otherwise than upon a finding that there exists a prima facie case against that person of the commission of the offences alleged by the state requesting extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether law authorising such involuntary detention requires machinery for testing the validity of the charges made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether surrender proceedings are an integer of a "matter" for the purposes of ch iii of the constitution .  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">external affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">extradition (croatia) regulations not made pursuant to any treaty between australia and croatia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether, in the absence of a treaty, the declaration by the extradition (croatia) regulations of croatia as an extradition country is invalid for want of support by s 51(xxix) of the constitution or any other legislative power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether pt ii of the extradition act and the extradition (croatia) regulations operate by reference to the conduct of the plaintiff external to australia or by reference to an untested and untestable allegation of such conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether the mere fact of a request by a foreign state makes the subject-matter of the request amenable to the exercise of the legislative power conferred by s 51(xxix).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1995] HCA 35">this resulted in damages in the amount of ats 38.400,</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1995] HCA 35">.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">freedom of interstate trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">prohibition of sale of potatoes by unregistered grower</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">whether prohibition valid against unregistered grower who sells potatoes interstate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">whether registration provisions regulatory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">provision for exaction of contributions from registered growers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">whether burden on interstate trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">whether valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">effect upon validity of requirements for registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12) s. 92</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">potato marketing act, 1948-1973 (s.a.), ss. 12, 18</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">acts interpretation act, 1915 (s.a.), as amended, s. 22a.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l1">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 1 Short title [see Note 1]</title>
<title id="l2">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l3">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 6 Meaning of extraditable person</title>
<title id="l4">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 16 Notice by Attorney-General</title>
<title id="l5">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 18 Consent to surrender</title>
<title id="l6">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 19 Determination of eligibility for surrender</title>
<title id="l7">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 22 Surrender determination by Attorney-General</title>
<title id="l8">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 49 Arrest of persons escaping from custody</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1739">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1739">whether condition 8534 of schedule 8 of the migration regulations 1994 is a condition made under s.41(2)(a).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 41 Conditions on visas</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 46 Valid visa application</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>