Case: Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert Ltd [1996] HCA 36 ; (1996) 186 CLR 389
Outcome: cited
In Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert Ltd [1996] HCA 36 ; (1996) 186 CLR 389 at 397 Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ said that all was required for a reviewable question of law to be raised was for a phrase to be identified as being used in a sense different from that which it has in ordinary speech. There is no doubt that the proper construction of factor 5(b) is capable of being a question of law. But that is not the question which the Commission raised in its amended notice of appeal. Of course, nor is a broad enquiry as to the construction or operation of factor 5(b) a question of law within the meaning of s 44(1) of the AAT Act, because it would involve the Court offering an advisory opinion which is beyond the judicial power of the Commonwealth: see In Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts [1921] HCA 20 ; (1921) 29 CLR 257; Comcare v Etheridge [2006] FCAFC 27 ; (2006) 149 FCR 522 at 528 [19] per Branson J, Spender and Nicholson JJ agreeing. 42 In Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs Ex parte Durairajasingaham [2000] HCA 1 ; (2000) 74 ALJR 405 at 417 [67] , McHugh J said that an obligation to give reasons, such as is found in s 43(2B) of the AAT, Act does not oblige the Tribunal to give a subset of reasons why it accepted or rejected individual pieces of evidence. In Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30 ; (2001) 206 CLR 323 at [68] , McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ said that it was sufficient if the decision-maker sets out its findings '...on those questions of fact which it considered to be material to the decision which it made and to the reasons it had for reaching that decision.' In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6 ; (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272 Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ said that a court should not scrutinize upon over zealous judicial review the adequacy of reasons for an administrative decision. They said that a court should beware of turning a review of the reasons of the decision-maker upon proper principles into a reconsideration of the merits of the decision. 43 Here, the Tribunal set out in its reasons factor 5(b). It addressed factor 5(b) in terms and said that, having considered its concerns about Mr Cotton's oral and written evidence and the other evidence, his drinking habit both during service and thereafter was such as to meet the conditions prescribed in factor 5(b) for hypertension. That is a finding of fact. The Tribunal reviewed all of the material going to Mr Cotton's drinking of alcohol. It found that over a course of years from 1946 to 1980, 'he drank on most days'. It described this in terms of it being his 'habit'. I am of opinion that the Tribunal was alive to its responsibility to make findings as to the matters required by factor 5(b) and that it did so in a way which reveals no error of law. 44 For these reasons I am of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding forty-four (44) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Rares . Associate: Dated: 16 November 2006 Counsel for the Applicant: Ms K Eastman Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitor Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M Vincent Solicitor for the Respondent: Thomson Playford Date of Hearing: 1 November 2006 Date of Judgment: 16 November 2006 AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2006/1523.html