mdroth/huggingface-course_section-5_zst huggingface dataset:
Case: Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Sherwood Overseas Pty Ltd (1985) 75 FLR 474
Outcome: cited
French J drew attention to the statutory context and the general principles that the classification of goods attracting exemptions or beneficial rates of tax should be liberally construed unless the text or context requires a narrower construction, and that words or phrases should be construed according to their popular meaning unless the evidence establishes that they carry a special commercial or trade meaning in their context: at 457 and 464. His Honour also noted that generalisations about the construction of statutory classifications are to be undertaken with caution, and that subtle changes in language can significantly alter the meaning and operation of a particular provision. French J contrasted the construction given by the authorities to the expression 'ordinarily used for household purposes' with the construction given to the expression 'goods for use' in some specified activity or by some specified person or entity. The former expression has attracted an objective test for characterisation of the goods said to fall within it: see Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Newbound &amp; Co Pty Ltd (1952) 10 ATD 59; 26 ALJR 386 at 387 per Dixon CJ; Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Sherwood Overseas Pty Ltd (1985) 75 FLR 474 at 477; O R Cormack Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1992) 92 ATC 4121 at 4123; and Hygienic Lily at 399. In the light of these authorities, French J expressed the test as follows, at 460: 'The question whether goods are "ordinarily used for household purposes" does not depend critically upon the use to which they are in fact put but on an assessment of their "essential character". That assessment does not involve fine semantic distinctions but a judgment which pays regard to the commercial realities of their manufacture and sale.'
Case: O R Cormack Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1992) 92 ATC 4121
Outcome: cited
French J drew attention to the statutory context and the general principles that the classification of goods attracting exemptions or beneficial rates of tax should be liberally construed unless the text or context requires a narrower construction, and that words or phrases should be construed according to their popular meaning unless the evidence establishes that they carry a special commercial or trade meaning in their context: at 457 and 464. His Honour also noted that generalisations about the construction of statutory classifications are to be undertaken with caution, and that subtle changes in language can significantly alter the meaning and operation of a particular provision. French J contrasted the construction given by the authorities to the expression 'ordinarily used for household purposes' with the construction given to the expression 'goods for use' in some specified activity or by some specified person or entity. The former expression has attracted an objective test for characterisation of the goods said to fall within it: see Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Newbound &amp; Co Pty Ltd (1952) 10 ATD 59; 26 ALJR 386 at 387 per Dixon CJ; Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Sherwood Overseas Pty Ltd (1985) 75 FLR 474 at 477; O R Cormack Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1992) 92 ATC 4121 at 4123; and Hygienic Lily at 399. In the light of these authorities, French J expressed the test as follows, at 460: 'The question whether goods are "ordinarily used for household purposes" does not depend critically upon the use to which they are in fact put but on an assessment of their "essential character". That assessment does not involve fine semantic distinctions but a judgment which pays regard to the commercial realities of their manufacture and sale.'
Case: Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd (1981) 59 FLR 415
Outcome: cited
French J said that, in contrast, the expression 'goods for use' introduces more subjective considerations into the characterisation process. In Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd (1981) 59 FLR 415, the Full Court of the Victorian Supreme Court noted that the expression 'for use in' is purposive, and makes relevant facts such as the operations which the machines in question were intended to perform, built to order to perform, and did perform: at 426 per Lush J (Kaye and Brooking JJ agreeing). In Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Stewart [1984] HCA 11 ; (1984) 154 CLR 385, the High Court was concerned with the expression 'goods for use ... and not for sale, by ... a public benevolent institution'. Gibbs CJ (Dawson J agreeing) said that the words 'for use' indicate the purpose to which the goods are intended to be put, rather than the use for which the goods were designed: at 390. Deane J said at 401 that these words require an objective characterisation of the goods themselves in the light of all the relevant circumstances, including knowledge of the actual use which was subsequently made of the goods. French J in Diethelm summed up these authorities by saying, at 464: 'Where design purposes are referred to in the classification by such phrases as "for use as", the subjective intention of the manufacturer and purchaser and actual uses to which the goods are put may be taken into account in the process of characterisation.'
Case: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Stewart [1984] HCA 11 ; (1984) 154 CLR 385
Outcome: cited
French J said that, in contrast, the expression 'goods for use' introduces more subjective considerations into the characterisation process. In Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd (1981) 59 FLR 415, the Full Court of the Victorian Supreme Court noted that the expression 'for use in' is purposive, and makes relevant facts such as the operations which the machines in question were intended to perform, built to order to perform, and did perform: at 426 per Lush J (Kaye and Brooking JJ agreeing). In Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Stewart [1984] HCA 11 ; (1984) 154 CLR 385, the High Court was concerned with the expression 'goods for use ... and not for sale, by ... a public benevolent institution'. Gibbs CJ (Dawson J agreeing) said that the words 'for use' indicate the purpose to which the goods are intended to be put, rather than the use for which the goods were designed: at 390. Deane J said at 401 that these words require an objective characterisation of the goods themselves in the light of all the relevant circumstances, including knowledge of the actual use which was subsequently made of the goods. French J in Diethelm summed up these authorities by saying, at 464: 'Where design purposes are referred to in the classification by such phrases as "for use as", the subjective intention of the manufacturer and purchaser and actual uses to which the goods are put may be taken into account in the process of characterisation.'
Case: Cabal v United Mexican States (No 3) [2000] FCA 1204 , 186 ALR 188
Outcome: referred to
present appeal is thus not the occasion to give any detailed consideration to those circumstances in which an opportunity to be heard or the requirement to take into account a consideration relevant to a decision to be made may embrace a requirement to have documents relevant to a claimant's case translated from a foreign language into English. Not unexpectedly, there has been no examination in the present proceeding of any more generally expressed requirement for evidence in civil or administrative proceedings to be in English. Nor has there been any real examination of such guidance as may be gleaned from those cases &#8212; such as extradition cases &#8212; where documents supplied in support of an extradition request may need to be translated: e.g. Cabal v United Mexican States (No 3) [2000] FCA 1204 at [154] to [164] [2000] FCA 1204 ; , 186 ALR 188 at 247 to 251 per French J. But considerations which may readily be identified as relevant to any such requirement extend to such matters as: the number of documents in issue; the relevance of those documents to the claims being advanced; the ability of a claimant to otherwise advance his case and any prejudice that may be suffered if documents are not translated; the availability and ability of an interpreter present during the course of a hearing before the Tribunal to translate particular documents or particular parts of documents identified by a claimant as relevant to his claims; and the financial ability of a claimant to himself pay for the translation of documents and the ability of the documents to be translated by any community-funded agency. No jurisdictional error, it is considered, is exposed simply by reason of the fact that a claimant seeks to rely upon documents written in a foreign language but not translated. More needs to be established. In the present appeal, no jurisdictional error is disclosed by the fact that numerous newspaper articles were not translated and were returned to the now Appellant at the conclusion of the hearing. The fundamental difficulty confronting the Appellant before the Federal Magistrates Court &#8212; and this Court on Appeal &#8212; is the adverse findings as to credit made by the Tribunal. Those were findings of fact, however, entrusted by the legislature to the Tribunal. No jurisdictional error is disclosed in the manner in which the Tribunal proceeded or in its reasons for decision.
Case: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI [2009] HCA 39 , 259 ALR 429
Outcome: cited
some circumstances it may be accepted that a Tribunal should make inquiries into aspects of a claimant's case: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI [2009] HCA 39 at [24] , [2009] HCA 39 ; 259 ALR 429 at 436. Whatever may be the extent of that duty and the circumstances in which it arises, in the present proceeding it may be accepted that inquiries were in fact made. The reasons for decision of the Tribunal thus record in relevant part the following: DFAT inquiries made at "Gujarat Today" [118] The Tribunal requested DFAT on 5 August 2008 to make inquiries in regard to the newspaper which the applicant claimed to write for. DFAT responded as follows: Gujarat Today is a non-partisan newspaper covering political and social issues. It is run by reputed NGO, Lok-Hit Sarvajanik Trust which was established in 1985 to bridge the "communal divide" caused by widespread religious unrest in that year. The Trust is managed by the Muslim community, and in addition to the newspaper is also involved [sic] charitable work such as free medical treatment camps in slum areas, educational [sic] for the poor, rehabilitation services to those affected by floods, earthquakes, etc. Gujarat Today is known to have raised and highlighted social issues of relevance to Gujarat ( Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2008, DFAT Report 875 India: RRT Information Request IND33642, 2 September ). [119] The rest of the DFAT response is set out below. Summary Further to RRT request IND33642, post has confirmed that a Mr [X] worked with newspaper Gujarat Today for a short period four or five years ago. Post could not verify the validity of the press identity card provided in reftel [ie research request]. Post could not obtain a photograph of the person whose name appears on the press identity card. Cable provides post response to RRT Country Information Request IND33642. 2. Post made enquiries at the office of Gujarat Today . Gujarat Today staff informed us that a Mr [X] worked with Gujarat Today some four to five years ago for around two months. Post did not provide the newspaper with a copy of the press identity card provided in reftel as they informed us that due to inadequate records management they would be unable to verify its authenticity. 3. Post was unable to verify the photograph of Mr [X] through other sources. Most staff at Gujarat Today either knew very little about Mr [X] or were too new to the organisation to provide any information ( Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2008, DFAT Report 875 India: RRT Information Request IND33642, 2 September ).
Case: S14/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1153
Outcome: cited
second reason why this final Ground of Appeal should be rejected is that, in the present proceeding, the now Appellant had been expressly invited by the Tribunal to draw its attention to any particular document that he specifically sought to rely upon. He apparently declined that invitation. The reasons for decision of the Tribunal thus record that it asked the Appellant " whether there was anything he particularly wanted to refer it to within the large amount of material submitted ...". And that arose, it is to be recalled, in a context where the now Appellant had been requested to provide documents to the Tribunal in advance of the hearing and yet only produced many of the documents on the day of the hearing itself. A claimant cannot complain of any inadequacy of an opportunity to be heard, or of any failure to take into account a particular matter, in circumstances where he produces a vast number of documents at a hearing before the Tribunal and fails to avail himself of an opportunity to draw the Tribunal's attention to a particular matter or matters contained within those documents. Even where a document is not translated, there may be no error where the Tribunal in fact takes into account a point sought to be made by a claimant in reliance upon untranslated documents: SZLSW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1321 at [16] , 103 ALD 580 at 584. Where the " gist " of a document which is otherwise untranslated is understood, there may be no error: S14/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1153 at [49] per Moore J.
Case: SZLSW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1321 , 103 ALD 580
Outcome: cited
second reason why this final Ground of Appeal should be rejected is that, in the present proceeding, the now Appellant had been expressly invited by the Tribunal to draw its attention to any particular document that he specifically sought to rely upon. He apparently declined that invitation. The reasons for decision of the Tribunal thus record that it asked the Appellant " whether there was anything he particularly wanted to refer it to within the large amount of material submitted ...". And that arose, it is to be recalled, in a context where the now Appellant had been requested to provide documents to the Tribunal in advance of the hearing and yet only produced many of the documents on the day of the hearing itself. A claimant cannot complain of any inadequacy of an opportunity to be heard, or of any failure to take into account a particular matter, in circumstances where he produces a vast number of documents at a hearing before the Tribunal and fails to avail himself of an opportunity to draw the Tribunal's attention to a particular matter or matters contained within those documents. Even where a document is not translated, there may be no error where the Tribunal in fact takes into account a point sought to be made by a claimant in reliance upon untranslated documents: SZLSW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1321 at [16] , 103 ALD 580 at 584. Where the " gist " of a document which is otherwise untranslated is understood, there may be no error: S14/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1153 at [49] per Moore J.
Case: SZNSC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1436
Outcome: cited
leave may be granted to rely upon an argument raised for the first time on appeal, leave should not too readily be granted &#8212; especially where it is not evident that the grant of leave is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice: SZNSC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1436. In refusing leave in the present proceeding to depart from the manner in which the case was advanced before the Federal Magistrate, particular reliance has been placed upon the fact that the now Appellant was previously represented by Counsel and the apparent lack of merit in the argument now sought to be advanced. Although the second Ground of Appeal suffers from the defect that it alleges no error said to have been committed by the Federal Magistrate, it has been construed as an argument that the Federal Magistrate erred in rejecting a comparable argument. So construed, it is a Ground without merit.
Case: Abebe v Commonwealth [2004] HCA 32 ; (1999) 197 CLR 510 
Outcome: cited
The Minister submitted that it is clearly established that it is for the appellant to make out his case before the Tribunal: Abebe v Commonwealth [2004] HCA 32 ; (1999) 197 CLR 510 at 576 [187] per Gummow and Hayne JJ. If the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the basis of the material presented that the appellant's claims are genuine it does not have any duty to make further inquiries: Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural Affairs v SGLB [2004] HCA 32 ; (2004) 207 ALR 12 at [19] per Gleeson CJ, at [43] per Gummow and Hayne JJ, at [124] per Callinan J, or to investigate the appellant's claims: NAYU v Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural &amp; Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 528 at [18] [21] per Jacobson J. The Minister submitted that, for these reasons and those outlined in [9] [11] above, the findings of the Tribunal and the Federal Magistrate's Court reveal no error.
Case: Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural Affairs v SGLB [2004] HCA 32 ; (2004) 207 ALR 12
Outcome: cited
The Minister submitted that it is clearly established that it is for the appellant to make out his case before the Tribunal: Abebe v Commonwealth [2004] HCA 32 ; (1999) 197 CLR 510 at 576 [187] per Gummow and Hayne JJ. If the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the basis of the material presented that the appellant's claims are genuine it does not have any duty to make further inquiries: Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural Affairs v SGLB [2004] HCA 32 ; (2004) 207 ALR 12 at [19] per Gleeson CJ, at [43] per Gummow and Hayne JJ, at [124] per Callinan J, or to investigate the appellant's claims: NAYU v Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural &amp; Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 528 at [18] [21] per Jacobson J. The Minister submitted that, for these reasons and those outlined in [9] [11] above, the findings of the Tribunal and the Federal Magistrate's Court reveal no error.
Case: NAYU v Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural &amp; Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 528
Outcome: cited
The Minister submitted that it is clearly established that it is for the appellant to make out his case before the Tribunal: Abebe v Commonwealth [2004] HCA 32 ; (1999) 197 CLR 510 at 576 [187] per Gummow and Hayne JJ. If the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the basis of the material presented that the appellant's claims are genuine it does not have any duty to make further inquiries: Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural Affairs v SGLB [2004] HCA 32 ; (2004) 207 ALR 12 at [19] per Gleeson CJ, at [43] per Gummow and Hayne JJ, at [124] per Callinan J, or to investigate the appellant's claims: NAYU v Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural &amp; Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 528 at [18] [21] per Jacobson J. The Minister submitted that, for these reasons and those outlined in [9] [11] above, the findings of the Tribunal and the Federal Magistrate's Court reveal no error.
Case: Sathiyanathan v Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 210
Outcome: cited
The notice of appeal filed on 2 May 2008 contains four grounds of appeal. As was the case in the court below, the grounds of appeal do not appear to relate to the Tribunal's decision. The grounds are cast in very general terms and lack particulars. Moreover, apart from the first ground, they fail to identify any error in the judgment of his Honour below which is properly the subject of the appeal. Instead, they invite this Court to re-consider the reasons of the Tribunal: Sathiyanathan v Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 210 at [10] . 14 The Minister filed written submissions dealing with each of the grounds of appeal in the terms set out in [15] [20] below. 15 The first ground of appeal asserts that his Honour erred in failing to find that the Tribunal erred when it 'wrongly applied the law to the facts as found in relation to the seriousness of harm that constitutes persecution as a member of a particular social group or religious persecution'. As his Honour noted, this allegation appeared to relate to another case, as the appellant did not make claims to fear persecution on the basis of his religion or membership of a particular social group. Further, the Tribunal did not make any findings as to the seriousness of the harm the appellant claimed to fear, because it could not be satisfied, on the limited evidence before it that the claimed harm had in fact occurred. The Minister submitted that it was for the appellant to make out his case to the Tribunal, but he failed to do so. 16 The second ground of appeal appears to raise three complaints. First, the appellant claims that the Tribunal failed to provide 'more opportunity to respond'. The appellants did not appear at the scheduled Tribunal hearing on 17 August 2007 and did not request that the hearing be adjourned or re-scheduled. In any event, the Tribunal complied with the statutory requirements and was entitled to determine the matter pursuant to s 426A of the Act. 17 The second ground of appeal also alleges that the Tribunal generalised the appellant's claims and failed to carry out the 'real chance' test. The essential basis of the Tribunal's decision was the inability of the Tribunal to reach the state of satisfaction to grant the appellant a protection visa as required by s 36(2) and s 65(1) of the Act. The Minister submitted that the Tribunal clearly set out and considered the claims advanced by the appellant and ultimately rejected them because it was unable to reach the requisite state of satisfaction required by the Act.
Case: SZBYR v Minister for Immigration &amp; Citizenship [2007] FCA 26 ; (2007) 235 ALR 609
Outcome: cited
The second ground could also be seen as an allegation that the Tribunal failed to comply with the requirements of s 424A of the Act. As was the case before his Honour below, the Minister submitted that the appellant has failed to identify any 'information' for the purposes of s 424A. The reason for the Tribunal's decision was simply the general nature of the appellant's claims and lack of details identifying that the appellant had suffered any harassment, persecution or harm for a Convention related reason. Such matters are thought processes and not within the scope of s 424A(l): SZBYR v Minister for Immigration &amp; Citizenship [2007] FCA 26 ; (2007) 235 ALR 609 at [18] ; SZEFM v Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural &amp; Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 78 at [23] per Bennett J and cases there cited.
Case: SZEFM v Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural&amp; Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 78
Outcome: cited
The second ground could also be seen as an allegation that the Tribunal failed to comply with the requirements of s 424A of the Act. As was the case before his Honour below, the Minister submitted that the appellant has failed to identify any 'information' for the purposes of s 424A. The reason for the Tribunal's decision was simply the general nature of the appellant's claims and lack of details identifying that the appellant had suffered any harassment, persecution or harm for a Convention related reason. Such matters are thought processes and not within the scope of s 424A(l): SZBYR v Minister for Immigration &amp; Citizenship [2007] FCA 26 ; (2007) 235 ALR 609 at [18] ; SZEFM v Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural &amp; Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 78 at [23] per Bennett J and cases there cited.