Federal Court. Where the Minister is statutorily obliged to provide a statement of reasons for his decision, should he "provide a rational and intelligible explanation as to why he chose to give greater weight to some material over other material where it relates to a significant issue which has been the subject of detailed submissions"? Can it be said that "it is not to be presumed that the Minister has reasoned in a particular fashion in a particular case, merely because that manner of reasoning would be permissible"?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Where the Minister is statutorily obliged to provide a statement of reasons for his decision, should he "provide a rational and intelligible explanation as to why he chose to give greater weight to some material over other material where it relates to a significant issue which has been the subject of detailed submissions"?
Question 2: Can it be said that, "where a primary decision-maker has provided the statement of reasons for a decision, those reasons become the focal point in determining where there is unreasonableness in the legal sense"?
Question 3: If the answer to Question 2 is "yes", does the same principle apply "where the legal challenge is a failure to engage in an active intellectual process with a submission and supporting materials relating to a significant issue for determination"?
Question 4: Can it be said that "it is not to be presumed that the Minister has reasoned in a particular fashion in a particular case, merely because that manner of reasoning would be permissible"?
Question 5: Were the significant deficiencies and omissions in the Minister’s reasoning giving rise to an inference that he did not meaningfully engage with the Applicant's submissions overcome by the fact that the last sentence of [45] of his statement of reasons commenced with the word "Therefore"?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: