Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">appeals on a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">nature of an appeal pursuant to s 44(1) of administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">formulation of question of law.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">meaning of improper discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">whether unequal treatment of equals only involves discrimination when it is not the product of a distinction which is appropriate and adapted to the attainment of a proper objective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">whether improper discrimination involves only discrimination against a person and not discrimination between persons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">discrimination related to the age of a person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">discrimination related to the amount or extent of benefits to which a person becomes or has become entitled during a period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">whether loyalty benefit scheme requiring a contributor to attain the age of 65 years before he or she can utilise the scheme's benefits constitutes improper discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">whether loyalty benefit scheme providing for benefits to be calculated by reference to the level of claims made for ancillary benefits by the contributor constitutes improper discrimination.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">appeals on a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">nature of an appeal pursuant to s 44(1) of administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">where purported questions of law invite broad enquiry as to the construction and operation of statutory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">where purported questions seek to characterise a question of fact as a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">where purported questions invite court to examine evidence and other material before the tribunal and conduct a rehearing on aspects of the controversy determined by the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether convenient to make for court to make findings of fact under s 44(7).  workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">commonwealth employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">meaning of 'injury' under commonwealth employees' compensation act 1930 (cth) and compensation (commonwealth government employees) act 1971 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether mere experiencing of event or condition necessary for development of a disease contracted by gradual process constitutes 'injury'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">s 101(2)(a) of commonwealth employees' rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether inchoate or contingent liabilities in respect of a disease contracted by gradual process transferred to administering authorities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">interaction of safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth) and veterans' entitlements act 1989 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether compensation payable in relation to service of defence force member where provision made for the payment of pension.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">applicant naff of 2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">non-compliance with statutory duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">tribunal concerned by inconsistencies in applicant's evidence at oral hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">tribunal said it would give the applicant a chance to respond in writing to its concerns</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">whether tribunal's failure to do so involved a failure to complete the review process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">whether failure involved a breach of the duty to conduct a review under s 414(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">whether failure involved a breach of the duty to hear from the applicant under s 425(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">whether reviewable error where absence of evidence from the applicant about effect of failure.  migration act 1958 (cth), ss 56 , 414 (1), 415 (1), 425 (1), 427 (1)(b), 420 , pt 7 divs 2-7a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">x v the commonwealth  discrimination law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">disability discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">appellant discharged from army on account of hiv-positive status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">discrimination admitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">discrimination alleged to be lawful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">appellant alleged to be unable to carry out the inherent requirements of the particular employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">meaning of "inherent requirements of the particular employment" in s 15(4)(a) of the disability discrimination act 1992 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">whether appellant "unable" to perform inherent requirements with reasonable safety.  discrimination law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">disability discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">infectious disease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">whether s 48 of the disability discrimination act 1992 (cth) provides an exclusive code for determining whether discrimination on account of an infectious disease is lawful.  discrimination law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">disability discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">"combat duties" and "combat-related duties"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">whether s 53 of the disability discrimination act 1992 (cth) provides an exclusive code for determining whether discrimination in relation to "combat duties" and "combat-related duties" is lawful.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">application for order of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">whether applicant must show a different result was inevitable or merely open if no error was made.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">project blue sky inc  ors v australian broadcasting authority  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">reconciliation of conflicting provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">intention of legislature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">presumption that provisions intended to achieve consistent goals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">leading and subordinate provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">grammatical meaning and legal meaning.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">acts done in breach of a condition regulating a statutory power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">mandatory and directory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">purpose-based test.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">standard prescribing australian content requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">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="cp8.17">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">power to make standards that "relate to ... the australian content of programs"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.21">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether restricted to standards conferring preferential treatment.  trade law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.22">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="cp9.0">cited from="[1997] AATA 307">compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1997] AATA 307">whether the applicant suffered an injury as defined under section 4 of the safety rehabilitation and compensation act 1988</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1997] AATA 307">whether accusing the applicant of breach of security in a performance review interview and without prior warning was unfair and therefore unreasonable disciplinary action.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 535">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 535">appeal against severity of sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 535">factors of retribution and rehabilitation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 535">balancing of those factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 535">substitution of sentences to take account of those factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 353">statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 353">commonwealth employees rehabilitation and compensation act 1988</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 353">exception for "injury" arising out of "reasonable disciplinary action"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 353">meaning of "disciplinary action"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 353">wide or narrow interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 353">ordinary grammatical meaning in the context in which it appears</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1992] FCA 353">purposes of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1992] FCA 353">reasonable action lawfully taken against an employee in the nature of or to promote discipline</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1992] FCA 353">disciplinary action, not the steps anterior to the decision to take such action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1992] FCA 353">action to determine whether or not disciplinary action will be taken against an employee not within definition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1992] FCA 353">nature of action depends upon duties and rules in governing statute or common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1992] FCA 353">look to disciplinary act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[1992] FCA 353">rules of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[1992] FCA 353">circumstances where action of a disciplinary nature can be enforced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[1992] FCA 353">type of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">cited from="[1992] FCA 353">depends on the regulatory rules of the employee in question</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">cited from="[1992] FCA 353">misconduct need not be proven.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2009] AATA 252">compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2009] AATA 252">claim for compensation under section 4 and 14 of the src act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2009] AATA 252">definition of injury or disease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2009] AATA 252">whether conduct of employer was 'reasonable' in terms of reasonable disciplinary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2009] AATA 252">decision under review is varied.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2009] AATA 155">compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2009] AATA 155">work related stress</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2009] AATA 155">the meaning of mental ailment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2009] AATA 155">outside the boundaries of normal mental functioning and behaviour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2009] AATA 155">delayed medical examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2009] AATA 155">diagnosis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2009] AATA 155">reasonable disciplinary action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2009] AATA 155">failure to give notice of injury as soon as practicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2009] AATA 155">no reasonable cause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">citing from="[2009] AATA 155">prejudice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2008] AATA 1087">compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2008] AATA 1087">claim for compensation under s 14 of the src act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2008] AATA 1087">whether process provided for promoting employee efficiency amounts to disciplinary action within the meaning of the definition of "injury" under s 4 of the src act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2008] AATA 1087">whether conduct of employer was "reasonable" in terms of reasonable disciplinary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2008] AATA 1087">decision under review affirmed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2008] AATA 450">compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2008] AATA 450">whether 'disease' contributed to in a 'material degree' by employment by employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2008] AATA 450">whether disease a result of 'reasonable disciplinary action'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2008] AATA 450">whether disease a result of 'failure to obtain a benefit'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2008] AATA 450">whether injury caused by 'serious and wilful misconduct'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2008] AATA 450">injury contributed to in a material degree by employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2008] AATA 450">decision set aside and substituted.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] AATA 252" id="cs0">The decision of the Federal Court in Comcare v Eames [2008] FCA 422 makes it clear that "disciplinary action" is not restricted to the imposition of a sanction, but may include the process of determining whether there has been a breach of the relevant Code of Conduct including the investigation required to make that determination. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] AATA 155" id="cs1">Section 4 of the Act excludes from compensation an injury suffered as a result of reasonable disciplinary action . In Comcare v Eames [2008] FCA 422 , Madgwick J examined the meaning of that phrase in the context of an investigation undertaken in accordance with the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 , regarding a breach of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct. Madgwick J referred to the decision of Cooper J in Comcare v Chenhall [1992] FCA 353 ; (1992) 37 FCR 75 where he rejected the proposition that disciplinary action refers only to the actual imposition of a sanction. In Eames ' case, Madgwick J held that disciplinary action had begun when the respondent was provided with allegations made against her. I have applied that reasoning to Ms Townsend's case. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] AATA 1087" id="cs2">The principles in Chenhall were recently applied by Madgwick J in Comcare v Eames [2008] FCA 422 at [34] and [46]. His Honour held in that case that an investigation of conduct and the reporting of findings to Parliament was disciplinary action even though it was decided not to take any action. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] AATA 450" id="cs3">To determine what, if any, action is to be classed as "disciplinary action" it is necessary to consider in detail the documentary provisions establishing the relevant disciplinary process: Commission of Safety and Rehabilitation of Commonwealth Employees v Chenhall [1992] FCA 353 ; (1992) 37 FCR 75 ; Comcare v Eames [2008] FCA 422. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l3">PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE ACT 1999 - SECT 4 This Act binds the Crown</title>
<title id="l4">PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE ACT 1999 - SECT 15 Breaches of the Code of Conduct</title>
<title id="l5">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l6">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 4 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l8">COMPLAINTS (AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE) ACT 1981 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 136">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 136">application to adduce additional evidence on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 136">s 27 federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 136">discretion to receive further evidence on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 136">considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 136">cogency of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 136">conduct of party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 136">finality of litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 136">discretion to be exercised judicially and consistently with judicial process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 136">application refused held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">szbyr v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">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="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants gave a statutory declaration to the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">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="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief was available to the appellants.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">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="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether s 424a applied to the appellants' statutory declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">temporal scope of s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal breached s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether "information" included discrepancies or inadequacies in previously submitted evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "reason, or a part of the reason".  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">certiorari and mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">impact of discretionary considerations governing availability of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">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="[2007] FCAFC 62">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">appeal from orders of federal magistrate dismissing appellant's application for constitutional writs and relief under the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) in respect of two decisions of the migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">where appellants applied for temporary business entry visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">where application refused by delegate of minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">where tribunal affirmed delegate's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">where federal magistrate held that tribunal committed jurisdictional error but declined to exercise discretion to grant relief sought by appellants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">where respondent by way of notice of contention challenged federal magistrates conclusion that tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">whether federal magistrate erred in finding that tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">whether federal magistrate erred in dismissing application in the exercise of discretion. migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">business visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">where visa sought by appellants required support of approved business sponsor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">where business sponsor's application to minister's delegate refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">where refusal affirmed by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">whether appellants entitled to challenge refusal of business sponsor's application. migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">authorised recipients</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">where appellants nominated an authorised recipient pursuant to s 379g of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">where tribunal sent letter of invitation in purported compliance with s 359a of migration act to appellants in person and not to authorised recipient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">whether s 379g of migration act required tribunal to give invitation to authorised recipient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">whether giving of letter to appellants in person sufficient to discharge tribunal's obligations regarding invitation. administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">discretionary relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.20">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">futility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.21">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">federal magistrate declined to exercise discretion to grant relief on the basis that in the absence of a business sponsor the appellant's visa application could not succeed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.22">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">relevant considerations. held: appellant's not entitled to challenge business sponsor's application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.23">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">s 379g creates obligation that tribunal provide letter to authorised recipient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.24">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">provision of letter to appellants in accordance with a method of service specified in s 379a not sufficient to comply with obligations in s 359a and s 379g</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.25">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">failure to comply with s 379g amounts to jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.26">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">futility to be assessed by reference to time in the future when reconsideration or rehearing takes place</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.27">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">court cannot be certain application will be futile on rehearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.28">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">magistrate erred in declining to exercise discretion to grant relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.29">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 62">appeal allowed in relation to appellants' application for business visas.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">szbel v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">protection visa decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant claimed he feared persecution on basis of his conversion to christianity if returned to iran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">delegate of the first respondent refused to grant appellant protection visa because not satisfied of the genuineness of appellant's conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">review by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant invited by tribunal to give evidence relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant gave evidence addressed to the delegate's concern regarding the genuineness of his conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa on the basis that appellant's claims were not credible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether tribunal failed to notify the appellant adequately of the issues to which its reasoning processes were directed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether failure of tribunal to ask the appellant to address issues that it considered might be important amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">circumstances in which a later full court can depart from an earlier full court decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">stare decisis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">determining ratio decidendi</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">application of minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v al shamry (2001) 110 fcr 27  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">the application of s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">meaning of 'application', 'information', and 'reason, or part of the reason' in s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">saap  anor v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">decision of refugee review tribunal ("tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal invited the first appellant to appear to give evidence and present arguments under migration act 1958 (cth), s 425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">evidence was later taken from first appellant's daughter in absence of first appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal affirmed decision under review by relying on information obtained from first appellant's daughter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to give the first appellant particulars in writing of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to invite the first appellant in writing to comment on information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached migration act , s 424a.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">construction of migration act , s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the provisions of pt 7 div 4 have sequential or ambulatory operation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevance of refugee convention in case of ambiguity.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether a breach of migration act , s 424a amounts to jurisdictional error that invalidates the decision.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">general law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached rules of procedural fairness.  administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether grant of relief should be withheld on discretionary grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevant factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s 39b.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">joinder of party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.24">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal was not named as a party for the relief sought under judiciary act , s 39b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.25">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the tribunal was a necessary party to the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.26">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">"officer or officers of the commonwealth"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.27">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act , s 39b.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 156">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 156">appeal from decision of federal magistrate dismissing application for constitutional writs directed to refugee review tribunal ('tribunal')</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 156">where appellant wife an albanian national who claimed to have been sold into prostitution in italy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 156">where appellant husband's claim for protection visa dependent on claim of appellant wife</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 156">where appellants had right to reside in italy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 156">where appellants claimed to fear reprisals from members of prostitution ring in italy and in albania</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 156">where delegate of minister for immigration and citizenship refused to grant protection visas to appellants on basis that they did not have a well-founded fear of being persecuted for a convention reason in italy pursuant to s 36(4) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ('the act') because adequate state protection was available in italy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 156">where delegate nevertheless accepted key elements of appellant wife's history</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 156">where tribunal upheld delegate's decision on basis of s 36(4) but also accepted veracity of appellant wife's history</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 156">where federal magistrate set aside decision of tribunal on basis it had misconstrued s 36(4) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 156">where second tribunal invited appellants to appear pursuant to s 425 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 156">where second tribunal did not indicate to appellants that whole of appellant wife's history was an issue arising in relation to the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 156">where during course of hearing tribunal indicated to appellants that certain aspects of appellant wife's history were in doubt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 156">where tribunal restricted its questioning to aspects of appellant wife's history which were of concern</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 156">where tribunal sent appellants letter after the hearing pursuant to s 424a identifying some issues of concern</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 156">where tribunal did not accept appellant wife as witness of truth and rejected her claim to have been forced into prostitution in italy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 156">whether appellants denied procedural fairness because they were not advised of the issues on the review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1246">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1246">persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1246">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1246">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1246">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1246">refusal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1246">applicant's refusal to be conscripted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1246">whether based on conscientious objection to law of general application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1246">necessary findings of fact when objection to conscription alleged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1246">tribunal's consideration of totality of the claims put forward</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1246">consideration of claims on a cumulative basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1246">tribunal stated it had considered claims cumulatively.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1692">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1692">application for judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1692">alleged jurisdictional error alleged failure by tribunal to consider particular social group asserted by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1692">consideration of recent full court federal court decisions.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 942">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 942">review of rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 942">where second respondent affirmed decision of delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 942">where applicant claimed she was a falun gong practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 942">where delegate found applicant's chance of being persecuted was remote</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 942">where tribunal found applicant was not truthful in her claims and not a credible witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 942">whether applicant was notified of the issues arising in relation to the decision under review pursuant to s.425(1) migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 942">whether necessary to identify significance of questions put to applicant in order for compliance with s.425(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 911">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 911">review of decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 911">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 911">conduct of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 911">hearings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 911">whether the tribunal accorded applicant natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 911">whether the tribunal had adequately identified to applicant for review "the issues arising in relation to the decision under review" as required by s 425(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2009">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2009">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2009">no failure to comply with s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2009">evidence and material given to the tribunal by the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2009">information contained in photographs is not "information" for the purposes of s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2009">tribunal did not misunderstand claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2009">no evidence that level of interpretation at the hearing was inadequate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2009">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2009">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 156" id="cs0">I should also make the point that although in this case the Tribunal sent a letter to the appellants after the hearing pursuant to s 424A of the Act, that fact cannot overcome any failure to accord procedural fairness at the hearing: SZIOZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1870 at [59] ; SZJYA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2008] FCA 911 ; (2008) 102 ALD 598 at 611 [56] .  The question arises as to whether this letter, sent by the second Tribunal to the appellant after the hearing, satisfies its s 425 obligations. In SZIOZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1870 the Tribunal sent a letter to an applicant after the hearing advising that a certain fact was in issue. The Tribunal had not advised the applicant that this fact was in issue during the hearing. Besanko J held (at [59]) that this sort of letter cannot satisfy the provisions of s 425(1) of the Act. Rares J came to the same conclusion in SZJYA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) (2008) 102 ALD 598 ; [2008] FCA 911 at [56] . I respectfully agree with these conclusions The second Tribunal did not inform the appellants of the central and determinative issues in the review
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1246" id="cs1">The applicant submitted that the Tribunal is obliged to identify to an applicant the issues which would be dispositive of the review, at least to the extent that an issue was not an issue before the delegate. He also submitted that any such issue must be identified at or prior to a hearing and that if such an issue arises after the hearing, a further hearing is to be held. The applicant referred to SZIOZ v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1870 where Besanko J said at [59]: The letter from the Tribunal sent after the hearing, it seems with its obligation in s 424A in mind, raises that issue but a letter after the hearing cannot satisfy the provisions of s 425(1) of the Act. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1692" id="cs2">It is clear that the delegate roundly disbelieved that the Applicant had converted to Christianity. This was a case where "the delegate rejected every aspect of an Applicant's claim" (see SZIOZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1870 (" SZIOZ ") at [56] per Besanko J). All matters in issue before the delegate were, in the circumstances of this particular case, in issue before the Tribunal (see SZIOZ at [56]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 942" id="cs3">If the reconstituted tribunal proposed or envisaged revisiting one or other of the issues previously resolved in favour of the appellant such a course would attract the obligation imposed by s.425(1). " [emphasis added]

That was not the case here as the delegate did not make a positive finding about the applicant's claims regarding the DVDs or the Nine Commentaries. In SZIOZ v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1870 (" SZIOZ ") the delegate had concluded that at the most, the appellant was a practitioner of Falun Gong only and had no profile in China, and then found that the appellant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. The dispositive issue in the Tribunal's decision was the claim that the appellant was a Falun Gong practitioner ( SZIOZ at [57]). Besanko J found that this amounted to a breach of s.425 and continued:

 "[59] ...</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 911" id="cs4">56 But moreover, it found, as a fact that '... it does not accept that she is currently a genuine practitioner' (my emphasis). There is nothing in her claim for a protection visa, the delegate's decision, or in the tribunal's statement of decision and reasons which put the appellant on notice before the tribunal's decision was made that the appellant had engaged in conduct here to strengthen her claim and that such conduct, went to her credibility. Nor could the s 424A letter that was sent after the hearing raise any new issue so as to satisfy the requirement in s 425(1) that the tribunal invite the applicant for review to appear before it to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review: SZIOZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1870 at [59] per Besanko J.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 2009" id="cs5">He submitted that this is an argument currently under consideration on appeal before the Federal Court ( SZIOZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (" SZIOZ ")) (NSD 203 of 2007)), and that if this issue was to be determinative of the matter before this Court, then this Court could await the handing down of this judgment. I note that at the time of the handing down of this judgment, that judgment has just been handed down in SZIOZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1870. While the Court found for the applicant, the Court did so on the basis of a ground other than in relation to s.424A. But in any event, I do not see this issue as being determinative of the applicant's complaint, given what I have said above about the application of what the High Court said in SZBYR to this case. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 27 Evidence on appeal</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91R Persecution</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91X Names of applicants for protection visas not to be published by the High Court, the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 422B Exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424 Tribunal may seek information</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424AA Information and invitation given orally by Tribunal while applicant appearing</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l11">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425A Notice of invitation to appear</title>
<title id="l12">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 426A Failure of applicant to appear before Tribunal</title>
<title id="l13">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 441A Methods by which Tribunal gives documents to a person other than the Secretary</title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>