[blml] Nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

WBF Laws Committee, 9th November 2003, item 3:

[snip]

It was observed that if given the correct
information the partnership might or **might
not** be aware that a misunderstanding had
occurred, depending on the situation.

[snip]

Adam Wildavsky:

>Thanks for tracking this down, Richard! I
>don't understand all of it, but to the extent
>that I do it seems to support the ruling in
>the case at hand. What do you think?

Richard Hills:

I think that Nashville 12 over-rode the "might
not" in the above minute, as it seems to me
that the AC was following an idea that the NOS
should _always_ be aware a misunderstanding
had occurred.

The 2007 Law 12B1 refers to "had the
infraction not occurred".  In the Nashville 12
case, if the MI infraction had not occurred,
then neither would the non-offending side be
aware of their opponents' misunderstanding.

(Of course the 2007 Laws are not yet in force
in the ACBL, but I am discussing whether
Nashville 12 is a valid precedent for future
rulings.)


Best wishes

Richard James Hills
Governance & Graduates Section
National Training Branch
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
Telephone: 02 6223 8439
Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm