Case: Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd [1994] FCA 1074 ; (1994) 49 FCR 576
Outcome: cited
parties accept that, for present purposes, the law is sufficiently stated in the reasons of the High Court in SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 63 ; (2006) 231 ALR 592 at [29] - [32] : No submission was made on behalf of either the appellant or the minister that the existence or content of the obligation to accord procedural fairness was directly affected by any provision of the Act. Rather, the argument proceeded, for the most part, by reference to what had been said by the Full Court of the Federal Court in [ Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd [1994] FCA 1074 ; (1994) 49 FCR 576]. The Full Court (Northrop, Miles and French JJ) said: Where the exercise of a statutory power attracts the requirements for procedural fairness, a person likely to be affected by the decision is entitled to put information and submissions to the decision-maker in support of an outcome that supports his or her interests. That entitlement extends to the right to rebut or qualify by further information, and comment by way of submission, upon adverse material from other sources which is put before the decision-maker. It also extends to require the decision-maker to identify to the person affected any issue critical to the decision which is not apparent from its nature or the terms of the statute under which it is made. The decision-maker is required to advise of any adverse conclusion which has been arrived at which would not obviously be open on the known material. Subject to these qualifications however, a decision-maker is not obliged to expose his or her mental processes or provisional views to comment before making the decision in question. [emphasis added] Particular attention was directed in argument in this court, as it had been in the courts below, to the tribunal's conclusion that the three identified elements of the appellant's story were not "plausible". Was that a conclusion "which would not obviously be open on the known material"? Or was it no more than a part of the "mental processes" by which the tribunal arrived at its decision? Stated in this way, the argument seeks to elucidate the content of the requirements of procedural fairness by setting up a dichotomy. There are two reasons to exercise considerable care in approaching the problem in that way. First, it is far from clear that the two categories that are identified (conclusions not obviously open on the known material, and mental processes of decision-making) encompass all possible kinds of case that may fall for consideration. Secondly, there is a very real risk that focusing upon these two categories will distract attention from the fundamental principles that are engaged. In Alphaone the Full Court rightly said (at 590-591]: It is a fundamental principle that where the rules of procedural fairness apply to a decision-making process, the party liable to be directly affected by the decision is to be given the opportunity of being heard. That would ordinarily require the party affected to be given the opportunity of ascertaining the relevant issues and to be informed of the nature and content of adverse material. [emphasis added] That was not an issue that was ever raised with him. The Authority, while relying upon conclusions to be drawn from inconsistencies, disclaimed any attack on Mr Shingles' credibility. Yet the Tribunal, without warning, made it "an issue critical to the decision": Alphaone , at 591-592. In the course of final submissions counsel for the Authority accepted that the Tribunal did not bring home to the appellant that this was a critical issue in the matter. In this Mr Shingles clearly was denied procedural fairness. In addition to the grounds specified in the Notice of Appeal, the appellant has sought leave to raise a further ground of appeal involving an alleged error of law in its construction of s 51 of the 1948 Act.