Australian Postal Corporation v Wallace, Marion Frances [1996] FCA 92

CATCHWORDS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - appeal from decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("AAT") - whether the AAT complied with its obligations under s43(2) and s43(2B) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975(Cth) - whether the AAT failed to give reasons or sufficient reasons for its decision, or failed to include findings on material questions of fact with reference to the evidence or material on which those findings were made - whether there was analysis or evaluation of the evidence - sufficiency of reasons are a question of substance and degree - material contentions and submissions to be considered - whether it can be presumed that the AAT accepted the opinions, findings, evidence and reasoning of particular experts - whether opposing expert opinions are clear-cut and differ on precise issues - whether reasons can be inferred from decision as whole - whether the reasoning process is disclosed - s43 to be approached in a common sense way - whether reasons expose a logical process - AAT's reasons not to be construed minutely or finely - whether there is substantial reliance - whether reasons convey to parties basis on which result was arrived at. Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 (Cth) s43(2) and s43(2B) Australian Telecommunications Commission v Barker (1990) 12 AAR 490, cited Dornan v Riordan (1990) 24 FCR 564, cited Telescourt v Commonwealth of Australia (1991) 29 FCR 227, cited

Commissioner of Taxation v Osborne (1990) 26 FCR 63, cited Casarotto v Australian Postal Commission (1989) 86 ALR 399, cited Savas Vasili v Australian Telecommunications Corporation (Unreported, 12 December 1991, Federal Court, von Doussa J, No SG 85/1991), distinguished Commonwealth of Australia & Anor v Borg (1994) 20 AAR 299, distinguished Telstra Corporation Limited v Arden (1994) 20 AAR 299, distinguished Commonwealth v Pharmacy Guild of Australia (1989) 91 ALR 65, considered Dodds v Comcare Australia (1993) 31 ALD 690, applied Politis v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 88 ATC 5029, applied Optiz v Repatriation Commission 29 FCR 50, cited AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION v MARION FRANCES WALLACE No NG 489 of 1995 Tamberlin J Sydney 26 February 1996