Exercise 013 | Law

Exercise 013

Conspiracy: Michael Franciscus Kalwy v The Secretary of the Department of Social Security (1993) 32 ALD 451

click here to download this document
click here (AustLII link) to view the case

Easy questions

  1. How would you cite the case?
  2. What were the material facts of the case?
  3. What was the history of the case - where had it been heard to date?
  4. What was the applicant seeking?
  5. What was the outcome of the case?
  6. In what court was the case heard? Where does this court fit in the hierarchy?

More difficult questions

  1. What was the central legal question in the case?
  2. What was the finding of the Full Court of the Federal Court the first time this matter was appealed?
  3. What was the tribunal's finding?
  4. What was the argument of counsel for the applicant in this second appeal to the Full Court?
  5. Why did Beazley J not deal with the submission that the tribunal's failure to deal with these two issues was perverse and unreasonable?
  6. What were the issues that the applicant argued the tribunal had failed to consider?

Complex questions

  1. How did Beazley J deal with the applicant's submission that there needed to be a 'tracing exercise' to determine where the money involved in a conspiracy had been paid?
  2. Did Beazley J consider a lack of evidence regarding the amount of money received by the applicant sufficient to constitute an error of law? Why or why not?
  3. Did Beazley J consider that the applicant's submission that the tribunal had failed to consider the unreliability of one of the witnesses amounted to an error of law? Why or why not?
  4. Beazley J had a different conclusion in relation to the failure of the tribunal to question the applicant's financial position after the period of the conspiracy. Why was his conclusion different in this case?
  5. What was Beazley J's conclusion? What do you think of his reasoning?
  6. Do you think there is a legal rule this case stands for?