Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No Evidence
S5 Applications for review of decisions (1) A person who is aggrieved by a decision to which this Act applies that is made after the commencement of this Act may apply to the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court for an order of review in respect of the decision on any one or more of the follow grounds (f) that the decision involved an error of law, whether or not the error appears on the record of the decision (h) that there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision (3) The ground specified in paragraph (1)(h) shall not be taken to be made out unless: (a) the person who made the decision was required by law to reach that decision only if a particular matter was established, and there was no evidence or other material (including facts of which he or she was entitled to take notice) from which he or she could reasonably be satisfied that the matter was established; or (b) the person who made the decision based the decision on the existence of a particular fact, and that fact did not exist.
3. [NOTE] Negative finding No evidence ground is not available where the finding is a negative one (Sunchen, Perram J) Reason: Decision make can simply reject the evidence as not credible
Page 1 of 9
3. No evidence from which the decision maker could reasonably be satisfied Enough to show an absence of evidence/material with respect to the particular matter (ABT v Bond, Mason CJ) I.e. there is no probative evidence to support the finding of fact (ABT v Bond, Mason CJ) Overcomes to a limited extent and in a limited area the restrictions on the traditional no evidence ground which requires total absence of evidence (ABT v Bond, Mason CJ; APC v Sellick, Bennett J) 4. CONCLUSION Page 2 of 9
3. Decision must be based on the particular fact Decision is based on the particular fact if that fact is critical to the making of the decision (ABT v Bond, Mason CJ; Rajamanikkam, Gaudron and McHugh JJ; Curragh, Black CJ) Apply but for test (Rajamanikkam, Gaudron and McHugh JJ (court agreeing)) Would the decision have been reached had the particular fact not been made? Multiple facts No need to identify a single particular fact said to be the foundation of the decision (Curragh, Black CJ) Decision may be based on many particular facts such that each particular fact that is critical to the decision (Curragh, Black CJ) A small factual link in a chain of reasoning, if it is truly a link in a chain and there are no parallel
links, may be just as critical to the decision
4. The fact did not exist __(Plaintiff)__ must actually negative the fact on which the decision was based (ARA v Reserve Bank) Meeting this requirement is extremely difficult (ARA v Reserve Bank) __(Plaintiff)__ must adduce evidence positively establishing contrary to the fact (ARA v Reserve Bank) __(Plaintiff)__ can use new evidence not limited to material before the decision maker to establish that a particular fact did not exist (Curragh, Black CJ) To accept some evidence and reject other evidence does not amount to an error of law (Curragh, Black CJ) 5. CONCLUSION
Page 3 of 9
Page 4 of 9
Page 5 of 9
APC v Sellick [2008] FCA 236 Held: Bennett J A decision made under the Act is invalid if there is a total absence of evidence to satisfy an essential element of the decision. The question whether there is any evidence of a particular fact is a question of law Failure to advert to the content of submissions does not necessarily mean that the matter was not considered If the particular submission did not go to the substance of the decision or would not have affected the outcome, failure to advert to it in the reasons does not mean that the matter was not considered and does not give rise to error of law. Workers Compensation v Smith [2010] NSWCA 19 Held: Basten JA (Allsop P and Handley AJA agreeing) Absence of unimportant facts will not be enough Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 32 Facts: Relevant fact in dispute was whether the building had actually served extension claim notices on the owners of the property such that the owners had no right to terminate for delay Held: Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ Whether there was no evidence to support a factual finding is a Q of law, not a question of fact There was no evidence before the Tribunal, when it decided the separate question identified by the parties, upon which the Tribunal could find that the disputed notices had been served
Statute
HABIB v MFAT [2010] FCA 1203 Held: S 5(3)(a) is directed to the need to identify a particular matter required by law to be established to reach the decision under review S 3(b) is directed to the proof of the non-existence of a fact critical to the making of a decision
1st Limb
ABT v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Held: There will be a discernible breach of duty if a decision of fact is unsupported by probative material There will be a discernible breach of duty if a findings of fact upon which a decision is based are unsupported by probative material and if inferences of fact upon which such a decision is based cannot reasonably be drawn from such findings of fact A finding of fact will then be reviewable on the ground that there is no probative evidence to support it and an inference will be reviewable on the ground that it was not reasonably open on the facts, which amounts to the same thing.
Page 6 of 9
2nd Limb
ABT v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Held: Mason CJ s 5(3)(b) was directed to proof of the non-existence of a fact critical to the making of the decision MIMA v Rajamanikkam (2002) 210 CLR 222 Facts: Re Migration Act provisions that were replicated ADJR provisions re this ground (identical) Sri Lankan nationals had applied for protection visas for fear of persecution in their own country. RRT had identified 8 factors which it said when considered together, led it to conclude that the claims of the applicants were concocted. 2 of these factors however, were lies, wrongly attributed to the applicant i.e. facts did not exist. Held (4-1): rejected the challenge Gleeson CJ: tribunal had identified an alternate reasoning to reject the application. Gaudron & McHugh JJ: given the range of factors that were raised about the applicants credibility, it is not possible to say that the decision is based upon only the 2 wrong facts. - this seemed to suggested something close to a but for test. Kirby J dissented: Credibility was critical to the application for protection visa. Further, tribunal had said that it was the 8 factors operating together and the number of difficulties with the applicants evidence that led to the doubts about credibility. To then conclude that the decision was not based upon the 2 factors would then lead to the court performing its own analysis in order to substitute its own version of the facts Majority held that the second limb restriction was not a qualification of (1)(h), but a statement of its content and therefore, not a cumulative statement on top of (h). Gaudron, McHugh and Kirby JJ: you have automatically satisfied (h) upon satisfying this limb. Gleeson CJ and Callinan J: required a separate satisfaction of paragraph (h). - Gleeson CJ: It is not enough to satisfy s 5(3)(b) alone. To do so would ignore s 5(1)(h). Satisfaction of ss 5(3)(a) or (b), while necessary is not sufficient - Note: the lower courts seem to take this view.
Page 7 of 9
Dunstan v Orr [2008] FCA 31 Held: Q: Whether s 5(1)(h) is made out if one of the matters in s 5(3) is established, or the ground in s 5(1)(h) is made out only if there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision and one of the matters in s 5(3) is established SGFB - A party seeking to make out the ground in s 5(1)(h) by establishing that the decision-maker based his decision on the existence of a particular fact and that fact did not exist must also establish that there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision. Here, the applicant seeks to make out s 5(1)(h) by reference to s 5(3)(a). The question whether s 5(1)(h) is made out only if he establishes s 5(3)(a) and that there was no evidence/material to justify the decision or whether he does so simply by establishing s 5(3)(a)] has not been authoritatively determined - No need to resolve this difficult question Here, even s 5(3)(a) was not made out Curragh Qld Mining v Daniel (1992) 34 FCR 212 Facts: Black CJ Applicant had imported mining equipment in order to meet obligations under contract Import tariff applied, but concession available where according to statute, no suitable local manufactured mining equipment reasonably available Applicant applied for concession on basis that local equipment was not capable of extracting quantities required His application was rejected on basis that applicant could have arranged terms of contract in a manner that can meet obligations using local equipment Held:
S 5(3)(b) does not require the identification of some single particular fact that may be said to be the foundation of the decision. A decision may be based upon the existence of many particular facts; it will be based on the existence of each particular fact that is critical to the making of the decision. A small factual link in a chain of reasoning, if it is truly a link in a chain and there are no parallel links, may be just as critical to the decision, and just as much a fact upon which the decision is based, as a fact that is of more obvious immediate importance. A decision may also be based on a finding of fact that, critically, leads the decision-maker to take one path in the process of reasoning rather than another and so to come to a different conclusion. S 5(3)(b) must contemplate that an applicant will be able to establish that a particular fact did not exist, and that the applicant will be able to do so in circumstances where there was an absence of evidence or other material before the decision-maker to justify the making of the decision. It could hardly have been intended that an order of review would be available only where the non-existence of the particular fact could be established from the material before the decision-maker s 5(3)(b) will be based on a particular fact where that finding is critical to the making of the decision i.e. this is more or less a but for approach that was suggested in Rajamanikkam. - Party negativing the fact can use new evidence to do so, they are not limited to evidence before the decision maker.
Page 8 of 9
Page 9 of 9