Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Comcare v Maganga [2008] FCA 285
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal denied Comcare procedural fairness in refusing leave to inspect summonsed documents – documents related to previous injury of compensation claimant – credit of claimant main issue in proceedings – documents therefore not available for cross examination – Tribunal must give parties a reasonable opportunity to present case – "reasonable opportunity" includes right to test evidence – Tribunal's refusal potentially denied Comcare opportunity to cross-examine effectively – whether access to documents should be denied as going only to credit – purpose for seeking documents clearly identifiable – not fishing to seek documents going to credit – wrong to determine questions of inspection by whether documents ought to be admitted into evidence – no need for documents to establish any specific fact – test of relevance is whether documents relate to issue in proceedings – discretion of Tribunal under Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) is subject to overarching obligation of procedural fairness – procedural fairness denied Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 33(1), 39(1), 40(1D), 44 Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5(1)(f) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 102 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) Albert Hadid v Lenfest Communications Inc [1998] FCA 470 cited Alister v The Queen (1983-1984) 154 CLR 404 cited Applicant S214/2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2006] FCAFC 166 cited Australian Postal Corporation v Hayes (1989) 23 FCR 320 applied Bailey v Beagle Management Pty Ltd (2001) 105 FCR 136 cited Carter v Hayes SM (1994) 61 SASR 451 cited Clements v Independent Indigenous Advisory Committee (2003) 131 FCR 28 cited Dolan v Australian and Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (1993) 42 FCR 206 cited Fried v National Australia Bank (2000) 175 ALR 194 distinguished Haberfield v Department of Veterans Affairs (2002) 121 FCR 233 cited Lawrance v Centrelink (2005) 88 ALD 664 cited Maronis Holdings Ltd v Nippon Credit Australia Ltd (2000) 18 ACLC 609 cited National Employers' Mutual General Association Ltd v Waind (1978) 1 NSWLR 372 cited Piddington v Bennett & Wood Proprietary Limited (1940) 63 CLR 533 cited R v Spizzirri [2001] 2 QdR 686 cited Repatriation Commission v Farley-Smith (2007) 96 ALD 348 cited Re Ruddock; Ex parte Applicant S154/2002 (2002) 201 ALR 437 cited Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82 cited Stead v State Government Insurance Commission (1986) 161 CLR 141 cited Telstra Corporation Ltd v Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts [2007] FCA 1398 cited Trade Practices Commission v Arnotts (No 2) (1989) 21 FCR 306 cited COMCARE v FERDINAND MAGANGA ACD 34 OF 2007 COMCARE v THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL AND FERDINAND MAGANGA ACD 35 OF 2007
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate