Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 242">contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 242">franchise agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 242">breach of exclusive territory provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 242">grant of another franchise within exclusive franchise territory already granted    damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 242">loss arising from breach of franchise agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 242">loss of net profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 242">causation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2009] FCA 242">question of evidentiary onus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2009] FCA 242">date and period of assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2009] FCA 242">calculation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2009] FCA 242">discount rate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2009] FCA 242">loss of gross profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2009] FCA 242">fixed costs    trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2009] FCA 242">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2009] FCA 242">misrepresentations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2009] FCA 242">franchise agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2009] FCA 242">exclusive territory provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2009] FCA 242">financial benefit provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2009] FCA 242">whether reasonable grounds for making representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2009] FCA 242">whether representations misleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 373">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 373">whether costs should depart from general rule that costs follow the event where appellant abandons two grounds of appeal and fails on one.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 306">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 306">offers of compromise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 306">uniform civil procedure rules 2005 (nsw) r 20.26</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 306">offer made under rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 306">alternatively calderbank offer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 306">offers rejected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 306">offer required order for possession and judgment for a specified sum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 306">court rejected offeror's claim for possession and judgment sum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 306">judgment for offeree no less favourable than offer of compromise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 306">costs follow the event unless other order appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 306">no evidence offeree brought inappropriate claims or unnecessarily protracted trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 374">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 374">consequential orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 374">exercise of discretion by primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 374">reopening of argument</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 374">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 232">practice and procedure  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 232">taxation of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 232">'rule of thumb' applicable when multiple defendants are variously successful and unsuccessful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 232">whether applicable to multiple plaintiffs variously successful and unsuccessful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 232">whether rule of thumb was properly applied in these proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 232">whether rule of thumb excluded by the costs orders previously made.  practice and procedure  jurisdiction of court to correct errors in orders under the 'slip rule'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 232">principles governing the use of the slip rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 232">whether slip rule may appropriately be employed in this case.  practice and procedure  legal profession act 1987</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 232">appeal from 'decision' of a costs assessor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 232">whether appeal only permissible after determination of assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 232">differentiation between 'decision' and 'determination' of costs assessor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 232">purpose of provisions permitting for an appeal from a 'decision' of a costs assessor.  practice and procedure  reckoning of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 232">principles governing the extension of time in which an appeal can be instituted.  equity  declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 232">court's power to issue declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 232">whether affected by the legal profession act 1987</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 232">principles informing court's discretion to issue declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 232">relevance of alternative means of appeal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">oshlack v richmond river council  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">statutory power under environmental planning and assessment legislation to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">"public interest"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">significant issues of interpretation of that legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">whether discretion with respect to costs miscarried.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">trade name</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">essentially descriptive words</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">necessity for distinctive or secondary meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">rationale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">logic and policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">substantial evidence necessary to establish secondary meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">mere expression of confusion or belief by individuals insufficient.  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">both parties successful on some issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">unsuccessful on others</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">discretion of trial judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">matter of impression and evaluation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">magistrates' courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">discretion to award costs to defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">magistrates (summary proceedings) act 1975 (vict.), s.97(b).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 334">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 334">multiple claims against multiple respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 334">where applicant succeeded on only one claim against one respondent and not the other</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 334">apportionment of costs awarded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 334">where judgment awarded is less that $100,000 and copyright claim failed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 334">can relief be sought from effect of o 62 r 36a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 334">where judgment in cross-claim is less than $100,000</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 334">question on effect of o 62 r 36a(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2011] FCA 334">where offer of compromise made with one working day before expiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2011] FCA 334">whether conduct of applicant was imprudent or unreasonable and indemnity costs should be awarded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">citing from="[2011] FCA 334">where motion filed for dismissal of application for want of prosecution is dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">citing from="[2011] FCA 334">question of who is entitled to costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1096">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1096">where application wholly failed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1096">where cross-claim partly successful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1096">basis upon which successful party is entitled to costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1096">whether apportionment of costs appropriate.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 973">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 973">whether global assessment or issue by issue approach appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 973">applicable principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 5">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 5">multiple claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 5">where applicant succeeded on only one claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 5">whether costs should follow the event</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 5">whether it was appropriate to apply the "rule of thumb" to apportion costs between the parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 5">the award of costs is in the discretion of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 5">no error has been identified in the manner in which costs were awarded.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 334" id="cs0">The parties filed written submissions in relation to costs. I do not propose to summarise the competing submissions though I will endeavour to deal in these reasons with the various propositions they advanced. The principles concerning the exercise of the power to award costs are well settled. A helpful recent decision in which many of the applicable principles are discussed in a broadly analogous case and referred to by the respondents in their submissions is the judgement of Jagot J in Haviv Holdings Pty Ltd v Howards Storage World Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 652 together with the judgement of the Full Court on appeal: Howards Storage World Pty Ltd v Haviv Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 5 ; (2010) 182 FCR 84. Having regard to the relationship between Mr Garrard and the corporate respondents discussed in the earlier reasons it is appropriate to treat the respondents as one for the purposes of determining where, in principle, the benefit and burden of costs orders might lie though they should be treated separately in relation to the actual liability to pay costs. The respondents have been represented by the same solicitors and counsel. I accept, of course, that I cannot ignore the fact that Entirity prosecuted, in the proceedings, different causes of action (both common law and statutory) against different respondents. Entirity succeeded in its contractual claim against Garsoft but failed in its claim against Mr Garrard under the Corporations Law and the Fair Trading Act and its claim under the Copyright Act against Garsoft and Scion. I put to one side, for the moment, Garsoft's cross-claim. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1096" id="cs1">I summarised the general principles relevant to costs in Haviv Holdings Pty Limited v Howards Storage World Pty Limited (No 2) [2009] FCA 652 as follows:

 [7] The award of costs is discretionary (s 43(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)). The discretion is broad but not unconfined. It is a judicial discretion to be exercised on a principled basis.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 973" id="cs2">There does not appear to be any significant difference between the parties as to the applicable principles. In respect of the costs issue reference has been made to section 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), conferring jurisdiction on the Court to award costs. In Haviv Holdings Pty Limited v Howards Storage Work Pty Limited (No 2) [2009] FCA 652 , Jagot J stated the applicable principles in her reasons for judgment at [7] --- [11] as follows:

 '7 The award of costs is discretionary (s 43(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)). The discretion is broad but not unconfined. It is a judicial discretion to be exercised on a principled basis.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 5" id="cs3">6 The question of costs was then argued. On 17 June 2009, the primary judge delivered judgment on that question and made orders. See Haviv Holdings Pty Limited v Howards Storage World Pty Limited (No 2) [2009] FCA 652. Her Honour made three specific orders as to costs. First, Howards, Plaza and Mr Spence were ordered to pay costs incurred by Haviv and Mr Aghion by reason of the adjournment of the hearing of the proceeding on 30 October 2008. Second, Haviv and Mr Aghion were ordered to pay the costs of Howards, Plaza and Mr Spence in so far as those costs were incurred in relation to two specific claims that had been abandoned by Haviv and Mr Aghion. Third, Haviv and Mr Aghion were also ordered to pay the costs of Plaza and Mr Spence, but only in so far as those costs were incurred solely by reason of the joinder of Plaza and Mr Spence to the proceeding. Such costs were not to include any costs jointly incurred by Howards, Plaza and Mr Spence. Subject to those specific orders, her Honour ordered Howards to pay the costs of the proceeding of both Haviv and Mr Aghion. 30 This is an appeal from a judge of this Court against orders as to costs: Haviv Holdings Pty Limited v Howards Storage World Pty Limited (No 2) [2009] FCA 652 ('the costs judgment'). There was no appeal from the anterior judgment: Haviv Holdings Pty Limited v Howards Storage World Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 242 ; (2009) 254 ALR 273 ('the substantive judgment').
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] NSWSC 893" id="cs4">

9 This was adopted by Einstein J in Currabubula Holdings Pty Ltd  Anor v State Bank of NSW [2000] NSWSC 232 at [104] . It was referred to by Kirby J in K  J Acquisitions Pty Ltd v Manauzzi  Anor [2009] NSWSC 279 at [54] and by Jagot J in Haviv Holdings Pty Ltd v Howards Storage World Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 652 at [27] .</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">circumstances in which a later full court can depart from an earlier full court decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">stare decisis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">determining ratio decidendi</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">application of minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v al shamry (2001) 110 fcr 27  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">the application of s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">meaning of 'application', 'information', and 'reason, or part of the reason' in s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1263">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1263">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1263">grounds of appeal raise no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1263">whether s 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth) required the refugee review tribunal to give written notice to the first appellant of its intention to rely on adverse information provided by the second appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1263">adverse information provided by "the applicant"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1263">refugee review tribunal exempt from providing notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">precedents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">decisions of full court of federal court on questions of statutory construction to be followed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">requirement that earlier decisions be "plainly wrong" migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">whether s 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth) required tribunal to disclose country information consulted after hearing migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">whether failure to disclose country information consulted after hearing constituted denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 178">whether failure to call oral evidence from newspaper editor concerning authenticity of newspaper articles constituted denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 209">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 209">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 209">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 209">adverse findings as to credibility of applicant and witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 209">whether failure of procedural fairness by failure to put proposed findings to applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 209">findings going to characterisation and non-acceptance of applicant's evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 209">no want of procedural fairness in failing to put those characterisations and conclusions to the applicant before reaching a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1692">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1692">reg 1.115aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1692">carer's visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1692">review of migration review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1692">whether tribunal erred in applying par 1.15aa(1)(e) by asking the wrong question</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1692">distinction between whether applicant resident's relatives can reasonably provide assistance and whether applicant can reasonably obtain assistance from those relatives</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1692">circumstances in which distinction needs to be drawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1692">effect of relatives' expressing unwillingness to provide requisite assistance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1692">effect of finding that assistance could be obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services which would suffice in conjunction with that which could reasonably be provided collectively by australian resident relatives.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">appeal from judgment of the federal magistrates court -change of circumstance (residence) (class ag) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">definition of "special need relative"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">whether jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">no error shown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">no question of principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 255">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 255">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 255">alleged jurisdictional error and lack of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 255">questions to appellant alleged to suggest commission of bribery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 255">questions said to be contrary to public policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 255">whether questions gave rise to failure to carry out function of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 255">whether questions affected tribunal's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 291">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 291">appeal from judgment of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 291">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 291">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 291">claimed fear of persecution on basis of race and political opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 291">rrt affirmed decision not to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 291">claim rrt took irrelevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 291">rrt misdirected itself in focusing on the angolan government's current food policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 291">failed to consider essential component of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 291">consideration one of the "integers" of the rrt's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 291">constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 291">error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 291">claim of "no evidence" for rrt finding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 291">finding of ineffectiveness of unita renovada</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[2004] FCA 291">not necessary for rrt to set out all details of country information relied on</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[2004] FCA 291">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">cited from="[2004] FCA 291">alleged failure to put information to the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">cited from="[2004] FCA 291">no duty on rrt to disclose reasoning process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.18">cited from="[2004] FCA 291">matter for rrt to assess evidence before it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.19">cited from="[2004] FCA 291">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 106">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 106">leave to raise new ground refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 106">failure to identify appellable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 106">need to state ground of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 106">failure to do so</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 106">mere assertion of "jurisdictional error"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 106">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 848">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 848">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 848">tribunal disavowed reliance on inconsistencies between oral evidence of husband and wife</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 848">whether failure to comply with s.424a of the migration act.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 452">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 452">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 452">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 452">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 452">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 252">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 252">where appellants sought to raise new ground on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 252">merits of the ground considered in order to determine if leave should be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 252">leave refused. migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 252">when appellants applied for an adjournment in the federal magistrates court to retain counsel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 252">where adjournment refused by federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 252">whether any error in the exercise of the federal magistrate's discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 252">where the appellants appeared jointly before the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 252">whether it is necessary that the evidence of one appellant be put to the other pursuant to s 424a(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 252">appeal dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1614">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1614">review of decision of the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1614">adverse credibility finding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1614">s.91r(2) of the act did not arise for the tribunal's consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1614">weight accorded independent country information a matter for the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1614">s.424a(1) of the act not enlivened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1614">tribunal did not adopt incorrect approach in assessing credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1614">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1614">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 110">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 110">application for protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 110">appeal from decision of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 110">whether tribunal failed to comply with statutory obligation to give information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 110">where appellants provided reference letter to tribunal from chairman of church attended by appellants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 110">where tribunal contacted chairman, who confirmed church attendance but was unable to provide details on other matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 110">whether "information" for the purposes of s 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth) migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 110">whether tribunal failed to comply with statutory obligation to give information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 110">where second appellant was spouse of first appellant and an applicant for review in own right</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 110">where second appellant gave evidence before tribunal which formed part of the reason for affirming the delegate's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.10">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 110">whether evidence was information "that the applicant gave for the purposes of review" under s 424a(3)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 392">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 392">appeal from decision of federal magistrate to refuse judicial review of refugee review tribunal (rrt) decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 392">where two separate applications for protection visas by husband (first appellant) and wife (second appellant)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 392">grounds for protection were fear of persecution for political reasons and membership of a particular social group by the first appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 392">second appellant's claim is reliant on proof of facts in first appellant's claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 392">applications refused in separate decisions by delegate of first respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 392">separate applications for review by rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 392">rrt referred to evidence of first appellant on his own application in second appellant's review and evidence of second appellant on her own application in first appellant's review after obtaining both parties' consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 392">whether notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to s 424a of migration act 1958 (cth) is required.  held : rrt did not rely on information given by second appellant in determining first appellant's review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.9">citing from="[2007] FCA 392">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.10">citing from="[2007] FCA 392">first appellant's appeal dismissed. held : rrt relied upon information given by first appellant for his own review in determining the second appellant's review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.11">citing from="[2007] FCA 392">such information does not fall within the s 424a(3)(b) exception</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.12">citing from="[2007] FCA 392">rrt must disclose information and allow an opportunity to comment pursuant to s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.13">citing from="[2007] FCA 392">failure to do so was jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.14">citing from="[2007] FCA 392">second appellant's appeal allowed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 199">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 199">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 199">refusal of protection (class xa) visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 199">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 199">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 123">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 123">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 123">chinese applicants claiming persecution for underground church activities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 123">disbelieved by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 123">no arguable case raised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 123">application dismissed at show</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 123">cause hearing.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 1801">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 1801">whether breach established of s 424a(1) of the migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 1801">whether evidence given by a second applicant in a tribunal proceedings falls within the exception provided in s 424a(3)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1646">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1646">migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1646">whether tribunal required applicant to meet higher standard than required by regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1646">challenge to merits of decision.migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1646">migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1646">s.359a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1646">statutory declaration made by third party witness submitted to tribunal by applicant's agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.7">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1646">falls within exception in s.359a(4)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.8">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1646">information provided by the applicant.migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.9">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1646">migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.10">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1646">regulation 1.15a of the migration regulations 1994</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.11">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1646">whether invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.12">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1646">whether redefines concept of "spouse" inconsistently with the marriage act 1961</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.13">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1646">no inconsistency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.14">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1646">no invalidity.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1541">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1541">review of decision by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1541">whether refugee review tribunal failed to comply with its obligations under s.424a(1) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1541">whether refugee review tribunal misstated evidence of applicant in finding that applicant's fear of persecution was not well founded.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1392">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1392">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1392">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1392">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1392">application for review of decision of refugee review tribunal affirming decision not to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1392">citizens of russian federation claiming fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1392">credibility issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.7">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1392">visa stamps in passport</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.8">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1392">where tribunal found that second applicant did not support evidence of first applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.9">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1392">whether tribunal failed to comply with migration act 1958 (cth) s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.10">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1392">whether tribunal's discretion under migration act 1958 s.427(1)(d) miscarried.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1318">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1318">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1318">chinese applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1318">withdrew claimed fears as falun gong practitioner and claimed fear as tien tao follower</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1318">disbelieved by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1318">no jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 761">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 761">anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 761">no special circumstances to preclude estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 505">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 505">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 505">whether tribunal failed to comply with s.424a of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 505">whether finding so unreasonable no reasonable tribunal could have made the finding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 505">whether no evidence on which tribunal could have based conclusion.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 106" id="cs0">Even in the context of migration cases where appellants are frequently unrepresented, it remains the obligation of an appellant to demonstrate legal, factual or discretionary error on the part of the Federal Magistrate: Abeyesinghe v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2004] FCA 1558 at [4] per Kenny J; Applicant M47/2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 176 at [27] per Young J; SZEPU v Refugee Review Tribunal [2006] FCA 633 at [2] per Young J; SZITU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 758 at [33] per Greenwood J. The jurisdiction relevantly entrusted to this Court is an appellate jurisdiction and no order may be made in the absence of appellable error. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 848" id="cs1">In relation to the s.424A claim it is notable that in SZGSI and Another v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship and Another [2007] FCAFC 110 ; (2007) 160 FCR 506 the Full Court of the Federal Court found that where there were two or more applicants for review, the Tribunal was obliged to provide particulars of information provided in the course of the Tribunal hearing by one applicant to the other applicant, if the relevant information had the characteristics enlivening the duty created by s.424A of the Act (see Marshall J at [45] --- [57] with whom Moore and Finn JJ agreed on this issue). Their Honours were of the view that the word " applicant " in s.424A(3)(b) should be treated as a reference to each applicant individually, so that evidence given by another applicant was not within the exception to the obligation in s.424A(1). In reaching that conclusion Marshall J indicated that he no longer adhered to the contrary views he had expressed in MZWMQ v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 126 (and see M47/2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 176 to the same effect). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 452" id="cs2">In SZILK v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [2006] FMCA 1318 his Honour Smith FM found: 39. The information relating to the statutory declaration which was identified by the Tribunal was that it "does not state that the applicant was a practitioner of Tien Tao in China". I consider that this information was sourced in the statutory declaration, and that it was used adversely as part of the Tribunal's reasoning. However, in my opinion the whole of that statutory declaration, including the limits of its contents, was information which the applicant "gave for the purpose of the application" within the exclusion of s.424A(3)(b). 40. This is because it was, as I have described above, presented by the applicant's agent to the Tribunal in support of her application for review. I do not consider that Federal Court authorities, which are somewhat discordant, in relation to the application of s.424A(3)(b) to evidence orally given by an applicant's witness appearing at a Tribunal hearing have relevance in the present situation (compare Young J's discussion in Applicant M47/2004 v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 176 with Branson J's discussion in SZECG v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 733). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 252" id="cs3">28 In relation to the third ground of appeal, the first respondent submits that there was no error in the Federal Magistrate's decision, as the appellants were provided with a s 424A letter. The first respondent submits that, in any case, on a joint application such as this one, information provided by one joint applicant need not be provided to other joint applicants: Applicant M47/2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 176 ; SZHTL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1052.
  31 Finally, in relation to ground 3, I accept that although it is unnecessary for the evidence of one appellant to be put to another when two appellants submit a joint application for review to the Tribunal (ss 424A(1) and (3)(b); Applicant M47/2004 [2006] FCA 176 ; SZHTL [2006] FCA 1052) , that in any event, the Tribunal put any inconsistencies between the appellants' evidence that it relied upon to the appellants in the letter it sent to them on 20 October 2005. I have identified the matters contained in the letter earlier in these reasons. This third ground of appeal also fails.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1614" id="cs4">32. Ms Clegg contends (see footnote 18 to paragraph 29 of her written submissions), that s.424A(3)(b) of the Act also applied to any information given by both applicants to the Tribunal at the hearing because they were joint applicants and members of the same family unit (see M47/2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 176 at [22] - [23], per Young J, MZWMQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1263 per Marshal J, SZHTL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1052 at [20-[21] , per Cowdroy J). I note, however, the proposition relied on by the first respondent was doubted by a Full Court of the Federal Court in SZBWJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCAFC 13 (at [45]). The issue of relation to s.424A of the Act , however, is resolved in that any evidence given by the applicant wife at the hearing as it related to the applicant and the inconsistencies in their evidence was put to the applicant in writing for comment in discharge of the Tribunal's obligations pursuant to s.424A(1) of the Act (see CB 123.8).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCAFC 110" id="cs5">50 Justice Young followed MZWMQ [2005] FCA 1263 in Applicant M47/2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 176 (' Applicant M47/2004' ). His Honour relied on an additional matter, not referred to in MZWMQ [2005] FCA 1263. Justice Young said that reg 1401(3)(c) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) supported the approach taken in MZWMQ [2005] FCA 1263. That regulation allows an application by a person claiming to be a member of the family unit of a person who is an applicant for a protection visa to be made at the same time and place as, and combined with, the application of that other person. However, that regulation deals with an application to a delegate and not with an application to the Tribunal. I do not consider that it supports the views expressed in MZWMQ [2005] FCA 1263 at [24] .  52 I regret that I did not have the benefit of full argument on this point in MZWMQ [2005] FCA 1263. On reflection, I do not consider that the views expressed there, or as endorsed by Young J in Applicant M47/2004 [2006] FCA 176 , can be sustained. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 392" id="cs6">78 Reference was made to a line of cases where the Tribunal had more than one applicant before it and a dependent applicant gave evidence which contradicted or tended to contradict the primary applicant's case. In MZWMQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1263 , the applicant's husband was also an applicant (a dependent applicant) before the Tribunal and gave evidence. Marshall J held that the husband was also an applicant. Section 424A(3)(b) excused the Tribunal from giving the applicant written notice of her husband's evidence. That decision was followed by Young J in Applicant M47/2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 176. The proposition was doubted but not finally decided by Nicholson and Emmett JJ in SZBWJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCAFC 13. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 199" id="cs7">This issue was considered again in Applicant M47/2004 v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 176 (" Applicant M4/20047 ") at [17] to [24] where Young J followed Marshall J in MZWMQ :

 17.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 123" id="cs8">the authorities discussed by Young J in Applicant M47/2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 176 with those discussed by Branson J in SZECG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 733 ).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1801" id="cs9">8 On the appeal the Minister raised an additional matter not raised below: namely, 'that information provided by the wife appellant formed part of the reason for the Tribunal's ultimate decision' and that 'it could be said that information given by a member of the husband appellant's family unit (despite being a visa applicant) was not information given by the "applicant" for the purposes of the application' and, consequently, a breach of s 424A could be argued to have occurred. However, the Minister made the further submission that a similar situation to the present context was considered in MZWMQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1263 , in which Marshall J found that evidence given by a second applicant in a Tribunal proceedings falls within the exception provided in s 424A(3)(b). That decision was followed by Young J in Applicant M47 of 2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 176 at [18] - [24]. I do not find that either MZWMQ or Applicant M47 are plainly wrong and, consequently, I am persuaded that the evidence given by the wife appellant is excepted under s 424A(3)(b). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1646" id="cs10">I do not consider that Federal Court authorities, which are somewhat discordant, in relation to the application of s.424A(3)(b) to evidence orally given by an applicant's witness appearing at a Tribunal hearing have relevance in the present situation (compare Young J's discussion in Applicant M47/2004 v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 176 with Branson J's discussion in SZECG v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 733).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1541" id="cs11">The respondent relies upon the following decisions of the Federal Court of Australia, on appeal from this Court, in which it was held that section 424A(3)(b) extends to evidence given by a joint applicant: M47/2004 v MIMIA [2006] FCA 176 (9 March 2006) per Young J, especially at [23]; MZWMQ v MIMIA [2005] FCA 1263 per Marshall J, especially at [24] (later also followed by Marshall J in MZWIF v MIMIA [2005] FCA 1701 at [11] ). The applicants note that there is a difference of judicial opinion in relation the application of section 424A(3)(b) , but that the decisions of MZWMQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2005] FCA 1263 and Applicant M47/2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 176 (9 March 2006) are binding upon this Court.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1392" id="cs12">Counsel for the First Respondent referred the court to Applicant M47/2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 176 at [23] and SZHTL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1052 at [20] --- [21], in support of the proposition that s.424A (3)(b), in its reference to an application, includes joint applications which are combined according to the Regulations. Applicant M47/2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 176 applied. In Applicant M47/2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 176 , Young J held at [23]:

 In my opinion, it is consistent with the object and statutory purposes of s.424A(3)(b) to construe its reference to an application as including joint applications which are combined pursuant to the Regulations.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1318" id="cs13">I do not consider that Federal Court authorities, which are somewhat discordant, in relation to the application of s.424A(3)(b) to evidence orally given by an applicant's witness appearing at a Tribunal hearing have relevance in the present situation (compare Young J's discussion in Applicant M47/2004 v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 176 with Branson J's discussion in SZECG v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 733).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1052" id="cs14">The third ground of appeal alleges that the Tribunal breached s 424A of the Migration Act by failing to provide to the husband details of information given to the Tribunal by the wife. The appellants suggest this is required by s 424A(1). The respondent has referred to Applicant M47/2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 176 , in which Young J held that in a joint application, evidence provided by an applicant whose application is based upon membership of the family of the primary applicant falls within s 424A(3)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in respect of the joint application. Accordingly, information provided by one joint applicant was not required to be provided to other joint applicants in accordance with s 424A(1). 21 The present situation is the converse of that considered by Young J in Applicant M47/2004 .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 761" id="cs15">21 Indeed, although it is unnecessary to decide the point, unlike his Honour, I would not accept that the substantive case that the appellants desire to make is a tenable one. The appellants' submission that they were denied procedural fairness because the Tribunal did not put all the inconsistencies mentioned in its reasons to them for comment before deciding the case against them does not disclose an arguable case. This is tolerably clear when regard is had to the well-recognized principles referred to in the first respondent's submissions: see [16] above and authorities such as Commissioner for ACT Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd [1994] FCA 1074 ; (1994) 49 FCR 576 (" Alphaone "); Pilbara Aboriginal Land Council v Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs [2000] FCA 1113 ; (2000) 103 FCR 539 (" Pilbara Aboriginal Land Council "); and Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; ex parte Cassim [2000] HCA 50 ; (2000) 175 ALR 209 (" Cassim "). It is well established that there will be no breach of procedural fairness when the Tribunal acts on information of which applicants should be aware: see Cassim at 214 [22]. It is apparent from the Tribunal's reasons that the appellants' legal representative was present throughout the hearing and was or should have been aware of the evidence that gave rise to the inconsistencies to which the Tribunal referred in its reasons. Further, the rules of procedural fairness do not require the Tribunal to notify an applicant of its mental processes or to provide an opportunity for it to comment on its findings before they are made: Alphaone at 591-592; also Pilbara Aboriginal Land Council at 555-557 [63]-[73]; and Applicant M47/2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 176 at [14] - [16]. The suggested obligation for which the appellants would contend amounts in substance to saying that the Tribunal was under obligations of a kind that the authorities have rejected. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 505" id="cs16">Mr Reilly for the first respondent drew the Court's attention to MZWMQ v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 126 which was followed in M47 of 2004 v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FMCA 1414 and [2006] FCA 176 and to VBAM v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 504.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1716">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1716">decision of the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1716">functus officio.  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1716">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1716">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1716">country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1716">protection visa.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">appeal from decision of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">whether any appealable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">whether migration review tribunal complied with its obligations under s 360 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">burden of proof on judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">whether negligence of migration agent established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">relevance of s 361 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">effect of mistranslation of sponsor's statement to interviewing officer where interviewing officer also the delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">whether supposed admissions made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">whether perception of interviewing officer/delegate seriously mistaken on account of mistranslation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">tribunal relied on account of interviewing officer/delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">whether the tribunal acted unreasonably in failing to make enquiries of interviewing officer/delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 1318">finding of jurisdictional error upheld</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 21">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 21">review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 21">applicant on notice as to determinative issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 21">tribunal did not fail to enquire</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 21">no denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 21">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 21">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 21" id="cs0">Ms Welshman also relied on more recent Federal Court authority in another matter on appeal from this Court, in MZXTZ v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2009] FCA 888 per Gray J, especially at [34] where His Honour accepted the formulation of the relevant propositions of law in Le . </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l1">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 33 Exercise of powers and duties</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 36 Protection visas</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91R Persecution</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 427 Powers of the Refugee Review Tribunal etc.</title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 430A Notifying parties of Tribunal's decision (decision not given orally)</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 441C When a person other than the Secretary is taken to have received a document from the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 64">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 64">whether administrative appeals tribunal (the tribunal) was entitled to rely on concession made by repatriation commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 64">true meaning and effect of concession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 64">concession made that evidence satisfied all criteria but one for veteran's entitlement to pension and that tribunal need concern itself only with that one held: tribunal entitled to act on concession, and no error of law in failing to satisfy itself independently that the other criteria were satisfied veteran's affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 64">whether administrative appeals tribunal (the tribunal) was entitled to rely on concession made by repatriation commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 64">true meaning and effect of concession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 64">concession made that evidence satisfied all criteria but one for veteran's entitlement to pension and that tribunal need concern itself only with that one</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 156">defence and war</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 156">veterans' entitlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 156">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 156">application for pension at special rate or intermediate rate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 156">application failed on independent ground not disputed in appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 156">appeal dismissed. practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 156">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 156">remittal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 156">extent of review on remittal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 156">order that the matter be remitted to the tribunal for further consideration in accordance with law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 156">no express or implied limitation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 156">concession made at first hearing disputed during rehearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 156">matter remitted is the whole matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 156">matter remitted is not confined to the question of law considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 156">specific remittal orders appropriate in ambiguous cases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 156">not prevented from raising issue not raised below.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 568">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 568">appeal from decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 568">application on behalf of minor by his next friend for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 568">application refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 568">place of the convention on the rights of the child in determining the application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 568">membership of a particular social group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 568">one child policy of people's republic of china</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 568">application of chen shi hai v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs [2000] hca 19 ; (2000) 201 clr 293</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 568">finding of fact by refugee review tribunal that the financial burden facing the appellant's parents in order to have him registered did not amount to persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 568">whether refugee review tribunal incorrectly focused on the situation of the appellant's parents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 568">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 64">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 64">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 64">special need relative visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 64">visa refused because appellant not "able" to provide assistance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 64">meaning of "able"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 64">visa also refused because appellant did not continue to meet visa criteria between application and final decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 64">meaning of "continues"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 64">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application of chan v minister for immigration and ethnic affairs [1989] hca 62 ; (1989) 169 clr 379</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1150">stamp duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1150">deed of appointment of new trustee of unit trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1150">retiring trustee registered as proprietor under real property act 1925 (act) of crown lease of land in australian capital territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1150">new trustee becoming registered as proprietor of crown lease pursuant to request to registrar of titles (act) under s.138a of real property act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1150">whether deed of appointment of new trustee properly characterised as "an agreement for a transfer of a crown lease" and consequently liable to stamp duty.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1150">administrative appeals tribunal (act)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1150">review of decision disallowing objection to assessment to stamp duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1150">question whether deed of appointment of new trustee of unit trust liable to stamp duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1150">question determined on basis of agreed statement of facts and certain documentary material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1150">decision by tribunal and, on appeal, by supreme court of the australian capital territory that instrument dutiable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 1150">decision set aside on further appeal to federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1994] FCA 1150">matter remitted to tribunal to be heard and decided again on basis that agreed facts presented to tribunal did not deal with all those matters which tribunal should have had before it.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 412">superannuation funds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 412">appeal from decision of aat not to grant s.13(1) notice under occupational superannuation standards act 1987</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 412">failure of trustee to comply with occupational superannuation standards regulation prohibiting borrowing otherwise than to obtain "temporary finance"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 412">whether tribunal erred in law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 412">meaning of "special circumstances"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 412">whether reasonable to treat fund as complying with condition because of existence of "special circumstances"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 412">whether issues not raised before tribunal can be raised on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 412">validity of retrospective operation of regulation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 412">s.48(2) acts interpretation act 1901 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1993] FCA 412">whether words "temporary finance" uncertain rendering regulation invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1993] FCA 412">whether tribunal applied too rigid a test in determining "special circumstances"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[1993] FCA 412">failure to take retrospective and transitional nature of legislation into account and have proper regard to the purposes of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[1993] FCA 412">whether trustee acted reasonably</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[1993] FCA 412">meaning of "in force" in s.5(2)(b) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[1993] FCA 412">whether regulation ultra vires the regulation making power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1989] FCA 381">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1989] FCA 381">whether an amount was assessable income of the taxpayer under s. 25 (1) of the income tax assessment act 1936</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1989] FCA 381">whether the amount was received by the taxpayer as officer of a company or as his own personal moneys</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1989] FCA 381">observations on the onus of proof under s. 190 of the income tax assessment act 1936 .  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1989] FCA 381">whether an "appeal" from the administrative appeals tribunal involved a "question of law"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1989] FCA 381">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 , sub-s. 44 (1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1989] FCA 381">whether moneys were received by the taxpayer as officer of a company or as his own personal moneys</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1989] FCA 381">findings by the aat as to the credit of the taxpayer.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 23">workers' compensation (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 23">commonwealth employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 23">disease due to nature of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 23">employment deemed contributory factor to contracting disease where regulations specified disease as related to specified employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 23">specification of disease and employment involving exposure to particular substance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 23">whether to be established that specified substance caused disease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 23">compensation (commonwealth government employees) act 1971 (cth), s. 30</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 23">compensation (commonwealth government employees) regulations, reg. 12.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">freedom of interstate trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">prohibition of sale of potatoes by unregistered grower</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">whether prohibition valid against unregistered grower who sells potatoes interstate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">whether registration provisions regulatory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">provision for exaction of contributions from registered growers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">whether burden on interstate trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">whether valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">effect upon validity of requirements for registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12) s. 92</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">potato marketing act, 1948-1973 (s.a.), ss. 12, 18</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">acts interpretation act, 1915 (s.a.), as amended, s. 22a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1958] HCA 50">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1958] HCA 50">sale of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1958] HCA 50">payment of price</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1958] HCA 50">establishment of letter of credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1958] HCA 50">delivery of goods by seller to buyer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1958] HCA 50">expiry of letter of credit without payment against it of price</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1958] HCA 50">action by seller to recover price</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1958] HCA 50">denial of liability by buyer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1958] HCA 50">claim that letter of credit exclusive source of payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1958] HCA 50">primary but not exclusive source</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1958] HCA 50">agreement to buy unascertained goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[1958] HCA 50">whether translated into sale on delivery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">cited from="[1958] HCA 50">issue not litigated on trial of action as commercial cause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.13">cited from="[1958] HCA 50">not open on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.14">cited from="[1958] HCA 50">to allow point to be taken would destroy value of commercial causes procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.15">cited from="[1958] HCA 50">appropriation of goods to contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.16">cited from="[1958] HCA 50">passing of property.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 914">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 914">application to review decision of administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 914">cancellation of business skills visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 914">meaning of " business " and " eligible business " in s.134 of the migration act.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2010] AATA 511">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2010] AATA 511">business class visa cancellation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2010] AATA 511">validity of notice of cancellation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2010] AATA 511">delegation to appropriate person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2010] AATA 511">no legislative requirement for decision-maker of cancellation to also issue notice of cancellation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2010] AATA 511">difference between wording of notice and legislative provisions not likely to mislead</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2010] AATA 511">invitation to respond to locked bag did not invalidly restrict form that representations might take</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2010] AATA 511">notice given to parent of minor satisfied legislative requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2010] AATA 511">cancellation of primary visa holder is not a pre-condition to issuing notice to secondary visa holders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">citing from="[2010] AATA 511">genuine effort to obtain substantial ownership interest in an eligible business in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">citing from="[2010] AATA 511">utilise skills in actively participating at a senior level in the day-to-day management of a business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">citing from="[2010] AATA 511">secondary visa holders will not suffer extreme hardship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2010] AATA 177">decision (1) the decision to cancel mr chun hou lu's business skills (migrant) (class ad) (subclass 127</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2010] AATA 177">business owner) visa is set aside and the tribunal substitutes a decision that the visa not be cancelled.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1328">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1328">materiality of the alleged errors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1328">where alleged error on behalf of the migration review tribunal does not vitiate the decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1328">where on the evidence before the tribunal no other conclusion open to the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1328">where decision sustainable on another ground unaffected by error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1328">no jurisdictional error    migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1328">applications for business skills established business (residence) (class bh) visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1328">whether appellants satisfied statutory criteria at time of decision of the visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1328">whether visa applicants had ownership interest in established main business in accordance with cl 845.221 of sch 2 migration regulations 1994 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 1328">whether tribunal took into account irrelevant considerations in identifying the "main business"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 1328">whether tribunal in error in conflating its identification of the "main business" with the question of whether the first appellant had an "ownership interest" in that business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 1328">no error in treatment of the "main business" question</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 891">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 891">application to review decision of administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 891">cancellation of business skills visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 891">whether tribunal misconstrued or misinterpreted the word " business " in s.134 of the migration act or failed to consider the applicants' claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 891">whether no evidence for finding or failure to consider evidence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 593">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 593">review of migration review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 593">refusal of a business visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 593">tribunal not satisfied that the principal applicant had an ownership interest in a main business in australia at the time of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 593">whether the tribunal erred in considering whether the main business of the applicant had changed considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 593">whether the decision was independently supported by the finding on the lack of an ownership interest considered.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 914" id="cs0">It was submitted that it was relevant to have regard to the authorities on the question of whether a Tribunal would commit legal error by not considering an issue, even if it was not raised or the subject of challenge by the parties to the proceedings before the Tribunal. In Repatriation Commission v Warren (2008) 167 FCR 511 ; [2008] FCAFC 64 at [78] , Lindgren and Bennett JJ referred to the principle that the court would more readily permit a matter to be raised for the first time on appeal from a Tribunal where the matter was a pure question of law or where: ... the matter goes to a misapprehension that was shared by the parties before the tribunal and therefore by the tribunal itself ... such as a shared misapprehension as to the applicable law.
(See also Liang v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another (2009) 175 FCR 184 ; [2009] FCA 189 at [23] citing Warren )
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] AATA 511" id="cs1">The word 'business' used in this context means "a commercial enterprise in the nature of a going concern, that is, activities engaged in for the purpose of profit on a continuous and repetitive basis": Mason J in Hope v Bathurst City Council [1980] HCA 16 ; (1980) 144 CLR 1 ; (1980) 29 ALR 577 , at CLR [14]; see also Tung-Liang Liang v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2009) 175 FCR 184 ; (2009) 107 ALD 88 ; [2009] FCA 189 , at [30] (Logan J).
 Mr Chen's Evidence
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] AATA 177" id="cs2">The word 'business' used in this context means "a commercial enterprise in the nature of a going concern, that is, activities engaged in for the purpose of profit on a continuous and repetitive basis": Mason J in Hope v Bathurst City Council [1980] HCA 16 ; (1980) 144 CLR 1 , at [14]; see also Tung-Liang Liang v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 189 , at 30 (Logan J). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1328" id="cs3">The Federal Magistrate found error in the Tribunal's treatment of the "main business" in which the appellant claimed to have an "ownership interest". The Federal Magistrate found that the Tribunal did not ask itself whether, as the appellants claimed, the main business was the business carried on by REI and Multi in that the business in which those two entitles were involved was the same. Instead the Tribunal incorrectly distinguished the decisions in Nassif v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affaird (2003) 129 FCR 448 ; [2003] FCA 481 and Liang v Minister for Immigration (2009) 157 FCR 184 ; [2009] FCA 189 and, in so doing, took into account irrelevant considerations in respect of the characterisation of the main business, being that: - (i) Multi did not exist when the visa applications were made (at [25]), (ii) the first appellant's motivation in ceasing trading through REI and continuing trading through Multi (at [28]), (iii) the first appellant was not a shareholder in Multi (at [28]), and (iv) REI and Multi were separate legal entities (at [30]). The Federal Magistrate concluded that the Tribunal had taken into account these considerations irrelevant to the question about the "main business" because it had conflated that issue with the "ownership interest" issue (at [28] and [30]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 891" id="cs4">Counsel for the applicants submitted first that Mr Lu's case as presented to the Tribunal was that he had established an integrated business whereby G Ping conducted research into Australian goods suitable for export to Taiwan, acquired those goods and had them shipped to Jason Tech for display and sale at Jason Tech's showroom in Taiwan. It was submitted that if the commercial activities underlying these claims were established, there could be no doubt that a business as described by Mason J in Hope at 8 --- 9 would exist, or that such a business would be an " eligible business" as defined in s.134(1) of the Migration Act . Reference was made to the fact that Logan J stated in Liang v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another [2009] FCA 189 ; (2009) 175 FCR 184 at [30] that the word " business ", as used in terms " main business" and " qualifying business" in the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), was used in the sense of " enterprise . " A similar meaning was said to be applicable to the word " business" in s.134 of the Act. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 593" id="cs5">The applicant contends that the Tribunal erred in taking an incorrect approach to determine whether the two companies with which the principal applicant was concerned were carrying on the same business. The applicant contends that the Tribunal incorrectly attempted to distinguish the case before it from that from those dealt with the Federal Court in Nassif v Minister for Immigration [7] and Tung-Liang Liang v Minister for Immigration [8] . The applicant submits that it is apparent from those decisions that the Tribunal needed to direct its attention to the nature of the business conducted rather than the legal structure through which the business was carried on. The applicant also contends that it was irrelevant to the proper approach to be followed that the second company was not in existence at the time of the visa application. The applicant contends that the Tribunal asked the wrong question.  The Tribunal held that the First Applicant satisfied the requirements of cl.845.213 at the time of the visa application: paragraph [38]. However, it held that for the First Applicant to continue to satisfy clause 845.213 at the time of the Tribunal's decision in accordance with clause 845.221, he must continue to have an interest in the same main business in which he had an ownership interest at the time of the visa application. This statutory construction was in accordance with what Logan J held to be the correct construction of cl.845.213(b) in Tung-Liang Liang v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 189 ; (2009) 107 ALD 88 at [54] - [55]. The Tribunal made detailed reference to that decision in its findings and reasons: paragraph [40]. Its interpretation of Logan J's decision was correct. The Tribunal has given consideration to whether the main business at the time of decision must be the same main business as that nominated at the time of application. However, the Tribunal is of the view that the nominated business or businesses are intended to be the same business or businesses that the application should be assessed against at the time of decision. The Tribunal has been guided by the recent decision of the Federal Court: Tung-Liang Liang v Minister for Immigration  Citzenship [2009] FCA 189. This judgement confirms that the use of the phrase "of that kind" in subclause 845.213(b) makes the interest that the applicant must continue to have, the same interest that the applicant had for the purpose of meeting the requirements of subclause 845.213(a). In considering the meaning of "continues to" in cl.845.221 the Court concludes [at 55] that the continued interest must be 'of that kind' that is, a reference to the 'main business' or businesses referred to in cl.845.213(a) and (b).</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">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 31 Classes of visas</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 41 Conditions on visas</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 65 Decision to grant or refuse to grant visa</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 134 Cancellation of business visas</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 504 Regulations</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>