Ultimate Vision Inventions Pty Ltd v Innovation and Science Australia [2022] FCA 606

Federal Court of Australia

Ultimate Vision Inventions Pty Ltd v Innovation and Science Australia [2022] FCA 606 File number(s): VID 836 of 2019

Judgment of: WHEELAHAN J

Date of judgment: 24 May 2022

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1976 (Cth) from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which affirmed a decision that activities claimed to have been undertaken by the applicant did not satisfy the definition of R&D activities for the purpose of s 355-20 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) – where the Tribunal's written reasons were in significant part adopted without attribution from the respondent's written submissions to it – whether unattributed adoption of the respondent's submissions demonstrates failure to undertake an independent review generally or specifically in relation to particular matters – whether administrative justice must appear to have been done – no jurisdictional error. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – whether arguments and evidence advanced by the applicant to the Tribunal were mandatory considerations that were not considered by the Tribunal – claims and assertions about factual matters made by the applicant are not properly characterised as mandatory considerations – whether the Tribunal ought to have sought further evidence from the applicant in the exercise of the Tribunal's inquisitorial functions, or notified the applicant that its evidence was insufficient – the Tribunal undertook a permissible assessment of the submissions and evidence and made findings of fact on the relevant issues – in the circumstances, there was no obligation on the Tribunal to make further enquiries – no jurisdictional error. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – where the applicant made an application that the Tribunal hear claims for the 2014, 2015 and 2016 financial years together and where the Tribunal refused to include the 2016 year – whether the Tribunal failed to take into account a mandatory consideration, denied the applicant procedural fairness or acted unreasonably in excluding the 2016 year from the review – no such errors demonstrated.