Dalton v Commissioner of Taxation

• 2 - Twenty First Applicant KOREAN AIR Twenty Second Applicant LAUDA-AIR Twenty Third Applicant LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRWAYS Twenty Fourth Applicant MALAYSIAN AIRLINE SYSTEM SDN BERHAD Twenty Fifth Applicant MIDDLE EAST AIRLINES Twenty Sixth Applicant NORTHWEST AIRLINES INC Twenty Seventh Applicant OLYMPIC AIRWAYS S.A. Twenty Eighth Applicant PHILIPPINE AIRLINES INC Twenty Ninth Applicant QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD Thirtieth Applicant SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD Thirty First Applicant SOUTH AFRICAN AIRWAYS LTD Thirty Second Applicant THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL LTD Thirty Third Applicant UNITED AIRLINES INC Thirty Fourth Applicant AND: FEDERAL AIRPORTS CORPORATION Respondent CORAM: BEAZLEY J PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 21 December 1995 SHORT MINUTES OF ORDER The Court orders that:
  1. On or before 16 February, 1996 the respondent provide the following particulars under s 13(7) in respect of paragraphs 4, 5, 5A and 5B of Determination 10 made by the respondent in November 1993 pursuant to s 56(10) of the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986 (Cth):
• 3 - (a) The reasons for the imposition of the charges imposed by clauses 4, 5, 5A and 5B. (b) The reason why a particular basis of charging was used at the individual airports specified in clauses 4, 5, 5A and 5B. (c) The findings as to why a particular rate of charge had been imposed under clauses 4, 5, 5A and 5B and to refer to the material upon which it is based those findings. (d) Particulars of the evidence on which it relied in making each of the findings referred to in (c). (e) Reasons as to why any variation was made to a charge specified in clauses 4, 5, 5A and 5B. 3. The respondent to pay the applicants' costs. 4. I further given liberty to the respondent to make application for an extension of the time specified in Order 1 on 3 days' notice. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) No. NG93 of 1994 NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: AEROLINEAS ARGENTINAS First Applicant AIR CALEDONIE INTERNATIONAL Second Applicant AIR FRANCE Third Applicant AIR LANKA Fourth Applicant AIR MAURITIUS Fifth Applicant AIR NAURU Sixth Applicant AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Seventh Applicant AIR NIUGINI Eighth Applicant AIR PACIFIC LIMITED Ninth Applicant ALITALIA LINEE AEREE ITALIANE S.P.A. Tenth Applicant ALL NIPPON AIRWAYS CO LIMITED Eleventh Applicant ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES (OPERATIONS) PROPRIETARY LIMITED Twelfth Applicant AUSTRALIAN AIRLINES LIMITED Thirteenth Applicant BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC Fourteenth Applicant CANADIAN AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Fifteenth Applicant CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD Sixteenth Applicant CONTINENTAL AIRLINES INC. Seventeenth Applicant EAST WEST (AIRLINES) OPERATIONS LTD Eighteenth Applicant P.T. GARUDA INDONESIA Nineteenth Applicant JAPAN AIRLINES CO LIMITED Twentieth Applicant K L M ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES

• 2 - Twenty First Applicant KOREAN AIR Twenty Second Applicant LAUDA-AIR Twenty Third Applicant LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRWAYS Twenty Fourth Applicant MALAYSIAN AIRLINE SYSTEM SDN BERHAD Twenty Fifth Applicant MIDDLE EAST AIRLINES Twenty Sixth Applicant NORTHWEST AIRLINES INC Twenty Seventh Applicant OLYMPIC AIRWAYS S.A. Twenty Eighth Applicant PHILIPPINE AIRLINES INC Twenty Ninth Applicant QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD Thirtieth Applicant SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD Thirty First Applicant SOUTH AFRICAN AIRWAYS LTD Thirty Second Applicant THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL LTD Thirty Third Applicant UNITED AIRLINES INC Thirty Fourth Applicant AND: FEDERAL AIRPORTS CORPORATION Respondent CORAM: BEAZLEY J PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 21 December 1995 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BEAZLEY J: The applicant airlines are users of federal airports under the control of the respondent. In November 1993, the respondent made a determination (Determination 10) under s 56 of the Federal Airport Corporations Act 1986 (Cth),

(the FAC Act), which, pursuant to clause 1, was to operate on and from January 1995, and which superseded all previous determinations. A previous determination, made June 1991, is the subject of other proceedings in the court (Matter No NG 978/93 ). Section 56 of the FAC Act relevantly provides: "(1)In this section: "aeronautical charge" means a charge for, or in respect of: (a) the use by an aircraft of a Federal airport; or (b) services or facilities provided by the Corporation; and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes: (c) a charge for the landing or parking of an aircraft at a Federal airport; (d) a charge relating to the embarkation or disembarkation of aircraft passengers at a Federal airport; and (e) a charge relating to the handling of cargo carried on an aircraft; ... (2) Subject to this section, the Corporation may, from time to time, make determinations fixing or varying aeronautical charges and specifying the persons by whom the charges are payable and the times when the charges are due and payable. ... (10)An aeronautical charge shall not be fixed at an amount that exceeds the amount that is reasonably related to the expenses incurred or to be incurred by the Corporation in relation to the matters in respect of which the charge is payable and shall not be such as to amount to taxation." On 2 December 1993, the applicants sought a s 13 statement, pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act), in respect of clauses 4, 5, 5A and 5B of Determination 10. Those clauses provided: "4. Subject to the additional charges set out in paragraphs 5, 5A and 5B...the following charges shall apply in respect of the use of Brisbane...Sydney...Melbourne...Adelaide, Perth and Hobart Airports: (a) for all fixed wing aircraft weighing more than 20,000 kg and utilising passenger terminal facilities at the airport which are not owned and operated by the [FAC], a charge per landing of $6.62 per 1,000 kg of aircraft weight, and pro-rata for part of 1,000 kg; (b) for all fixed wing aircraft, other than those covered by sub-paragraph (a)..., a charge per landing of $5.72 per 1,000 kg of aircraft weight and pro-rata for part of 1,000 kg subject to a minimum charge of $27.50 per landing for all landings other than those referred to in paragraph 5; (c) for all rotary wing aircraft, a charge per landing of the greater of $13.75 or $2.86 per 1000 kg of aircraft weight and pro rata for part of 1,000 kg; (d) for all aircraft parked in designated general aviation parking areas for a period in excess of two hours, a charge of $11.00 per aircraft per day or part thereof. 5 In addition to the charges set out in paragraph 4 above, the following charges apply for the use of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport between the hours specified: (a) $200 for each landing at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport by fixed wing aircraft not engaged in regular public transport operations between 7.30 am and 8.00 am, 9.00 am and 10.00 am, 5.00 pm and 6.00 pm or 7.00 pm and 7.30 pm on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday; (b) $100 for each take-off from Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport by fixed wing aircraft not engaged in regular public transport operations between 7.30 am and 8.00 am, 9.00 am and 10.00 am, 5.00 pm and 6.00 pm or 7.00 pm and 7.30 pm on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday; (c) $250 for each landing at, or take-off from Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport by fixed wing aircraft between 8.00 am and 9.00 am or between 6.00 pm and 7.00 pm on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday; 5A In addition to the charges set out in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 above, a charge per landing at Brisbane (Eagle Farm), Sydney (Kingsford-Smith), Melbourne (Tullamarine), Adelaide, Perth, Hobart, Coolangatta, Launceston, Darwin, Alice Springs and Townsville Airports of $0.60 per 1,000 kg of aircraft weight and pro-rata for part of 1,000 kg, for all fixed wing aircraft weighing more than 20,000 kg. 5B In addition to the charges set out in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 5A above, a charge per landing at Brisbane... Sydney... Melbourne... Adelaide, Perth, Hobart, Darwin and Townsville airports of $1.05 per 1,000 kg of aircraft weight, and pro rata for part of 1,000 kg, for all fixed wing aircraft utilising passenger terminal facilities owned and operated by the Corporation." On 14 February 1994, the respondent provided a statement of reasons. Before dealing with the statement of reasons and the particulars which were subsequently provided, it is convenient to deal with the requirements of a s 13 statement. Pursuant to s 13 of the ADJR Act, a person entitled to apply for review of a decision may obtain reasons for that decision. A statement of reasons must be in writing, and must set out the findings on material questions of fact, referring to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based and giving the reasons for the decision: section 13(1). If, upon application to it, the Court considers that a statement furnished under s 13(1) does not contain adequate particulars of findings on material questions of fact, an adequate reference to the evidence, or other material on which those findings were based, or adequate particulars of the reasons for the decision, the Court may order the person furnishing the request to provide an additional statement containing further and better particulars in relation to the matters specified in the order relating to the findings, the evidence or other material, or the reasons: s 13(7). The purpose of a s 13 statement is, as Lockhart J stated in Dalton v Commissioner of Taxation (1985) 7 FCR 382 at 391: "To expose the decision-making processes of government...bodies...and to ensure that persons whose rights and interests may be affected by decisions made in the course of administrative processes are properly informed of the reasons for them and the findings upon which they are based." In Powell v Evreniades (1989) 21 FCR 252, Hill J said at 265: "The information received [in a s 13 statement] may be used 'to chart' the 'future course' of action for the person affected by the decision. It permits that person to see the decision for what it is, to examine whether irrelevant matters were taken into account or relevant matters not considered. For present purposes it enables that person to know whether the decision was made against a background of wrong facts. Only in such a way can the person affected be fully informed so that her or his advisers can make a proper decision how further to proceed." In Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Wraith (1983) 48 ALR 500, Woodward J said at 507: "[Section 13(1)] requires that the decision-maker should set out his understanding of the relevant law, any findings of fact on which [the] conclusions depend (especially if those facts have been in dispute), and the reasoning processes which led him to those conclusions. He should do so in clear and unambiguous language, not in vague generalities or the formal language of legislation. The Statement of Reasons The statement of reasons was in the following terms: "The findings on material questions of fact in relation to Determination 10 are set out in Annexure 'A' to this Statement of Reasons. Annexure 'A' was prepared before the completion of the 1993 accounts and was provided to industry groups in or about October 1993. The reasons for the aeronautical charges imposed pursuant to Determination 10 are as follows: (1) Subject to (2) below, the Corporation seeks to align its aeronautical charges with the cost of services provided to individual users and in keeping with the guidelines of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). (2) However, aeronautical charges in total remain at a level which does not fully recover aeronautical expenses, although full recovery is permitted under section 56 of the Federal Airports Corporation Act. (3) The variations in certain components of the aeronautical charges from the levels of charge imposed by previous Determinations which are outlined in Determination 10 were adopted for the following reasons: (i) to assist the Corporation to meet the increased expenses of providing airport services to aircraft in the period since the determination of the Corporation which became effective on 1 January 1993 and for forecast increases in expenses in the period in which Determination 10 will apply. The budgeted increases in both revenue and expenditure for the 1993/1994 period by comparison to the 1991/1992 period are outlined in Annexure 'A'. The 1993/1994 budget predicts a 10.4% increase in revenue against cost increases of 22.6%; and (ii)to reduce the general level of under-recovery of the expenses associated with the provision of aircraft and passenger landing and handling services at the Corporation's Airports. It is estimated that the financial impact of the increases in aeronautical charges will be to increase aeronautical revenues to the Corporation for 1993/1994 by $2.8 million or ($1.8 million after tax). (4) The increase of the terminal charge in clause 5B of the Determination 10 represented a real increase in the level of overall aeronautical charges to users of passenger terminal facilities owned and operated by the Corporation of approximately 4%, while the real level of the existing unchanged aeronautical charge of $5.72 per 1,000 kg will reduce by 3%. A significant proportion of expenses in respect of passenger terminal facilities owned and operated by the Corporation will still be recovered through the existing aeronautical charge of $5.72 per 1,000 kg." Annexure A was described as "Explanation of Main Changes in Revenue and Expenditure, 1993/94 compared with 1991/92". It contained the following statement: "Information on the 1992/93 audited accounts will not be available for public disclosure until cleared by the Minister in November, 1993 hence the use of 1991/92 actual results as a base from which to demonstrate the change over a two year period." The annexure went on to state that in 1993/94, total expenditure was forecast to increase by $48 million, an increase of 20% on the equivalent figure in 1991/92. The increase in various items of expenditure over that period was then set out. Particulars were given of increases in salaries and wages, general administration, services and utilities, maintenance, depreciation and interest. Details were given of forecast growth in revenue. The proposed increase in certain aeronautical charges was then addressed as follows: "Proposed increase in some Aeronautical charges "The Corporation has incurred substantial additional expenses as a consequence of providing enlarged and improved facilities required by the airline industry. The underlying rationale for the increases are as follows: 1. International Terminal Use Charge increase of $0.45/MTOW tonne from $0.60 to S1.05/MTOW tonne to yield additional revenue of $2.6 million in Jan/Jun 1994. As identified in the sections explaining movements in Depreciation and Interest, the substantial cause of these increases is expenditure arising from the provision of new and improved Passenger Terminal facilities benefiting in particular, International airline operators and their passengers. Consistent with its stated intention to move progressively towards service specific charges and, in recognition that other sectors of aviation not using the International Passenger Terminal facility enhancements should not be asked to pay increased charges towards those costs, the Corporation is seeking an additional contribution to meet those increased costs via an adjustment to the Passenger Terminal Use Charge of $0.45/MTOW tonne which would yield $2.6 million in additional revenue in the Jan/Jun 1994 period. The implied annual increase in Aeronautical revenue required to meet the Corporation's objectives in 1993/94 would have been about $35.25 million . Based on a forecast of 5,725,429 International airlines landed tonnes in the Jan/Jun 1994 period, this would have required an increase in the International Passenger Terminal Use rate from the current $0.60/MTOW tonne to $6.16/ MTOW tonne for full recovery. However, the Corporation has taken the following steps to contain overall Aeronautical revenue growth from charges to levels which reflect no increase in real terms: Increased external borrowings of $62 million to fund capital works. Deferral of some capital works. Reduction in the projected Rate of Return from 7.5% to 6%. The Corporation's proposal should therefore be viewed in this light. 2. General Aviation Infrastructure Tariff (GAIT) increase of 10 % to yield $0.2 million in additional revenue in Jan/Jun 1994 At approximately 13% cost recovery of Aeronautical facilities and services from Aeronautical Charges and 30 ‑ 35 % from all sources of revenue, the level of costs recovered remains substantially below that of other aviation sectors. The need exists to continue to reduce the extent of subsidization by increasing the level of Aeronautical revenue contribution from General Aviation. This is the reason for the proposal to increase GAIT charges including aircraft parking on GA designated areas on Group one airports, in real terms." Attachment #1 to Annexure A, headed "Financial Aspects of Aeronautical Charges Increase Proposal" contained a table of revenue and expenditure broken down into various headings including: 1991\92 Actual; 1993\4 Budget (without full year effect of International Use Charge increase (ITC)); the percentage increase in the budgeted figures over the 1991\92 Actual; 1993\94 Budget (with full year effect of ITC); the 2 year percentage increase on 91\92; 1993\94 Budget (with full year effect of ITC, including Aeronautical charges increases); the dollar increase on 1991\92 over 2 years and the percentage 1991\92 increase over 2 years. The applicants sought further and better particulars of the statement of reasons. It is necessary to refer to each request and response thereto to determine whether, in conjunction with the statement of reasons, the respondent complied with its s 13 obligations. The particulars requested appear below in italics and the responses appear in bold. "1. On an airport by airport basis, [provide details of] all expenses incurred or to be incurred by the Respondent, and deemed by the Respondent as reasonably related to: (a) The use of the following airports: (i) by aircraft utilising passenger terminal facilities at the airport which are not owned and operated by the Respondent, and (ii)aircraft other than those referred to in (i). Airports: Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Hobart (Determination 4(a) & (b)). (b) The use by aircraft of Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport between the hours specified in Determination 5(a) ‑ (c). (c) The use by aircraft of Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Hobart, Coolangatta, Launceston, Darwin, Alice Springs and Townsville Airports. (Determination 5A) (d) The use by aircraft of passenger terminal facilities owned and operated by the Respondent, at Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Hobart, Darwin and Townsville. (Determination 5B) 1. The reasons for variations in certain components of the aeronautical charges from the levels of charge imposed by previous Determinations which are made by Determination 10 were given in the Statement of Reasons. Note that the reference in paragraph (3) of the Statement of Reasons to Determination 9 should be a reference to "previous Determinations". 2. On an airport by airport basis, all revenue of the Respondent off­set against the expenses particularised pursuant to the above. 2. The reasons for variations in certain components of the aeronautical charges from the levels of charge imposed by previous Determinations which are made by Determination 10 were given in the Statement of Reasons. 3. Separate reasons in respect of each of paragraphs 4(a), 4(b), 5(a),(c), 5A and 5B of the Determination. 3. The reasons for variations in certain components of the aeronautical charges from the levels of charge imposed by previous Determinations which are made by Determination 10 were given in the Statement of Reasons. In addition: (a) Paragraphs 4(a), 5(a)-(c), and 5A were unchanged by Determination 10. (b) The reasons for the variation to paragraph 4(b) made by Determination 10 were given at paragraphs (1)-(3) of the Statement of Reasons. (c) The reasons for the variation to paragraph 5B made by Determination 10 were given in paragraph (4) of the Statement of Reasons, save that by way of clarification the increase in the terminal usage charge from $0.60 per 1,000kg MTOW and pro rata for part of 1,000kg to $1.05 per 1000kg MTOW and pro rata for part of 1,000kg made by Determination 10 was to raise revenue to meet part of the increased costs of operation during 1993/1994 of terminals owned and operated by the FAC. 4. Generally, in respect of each charge: (a) how each charge was calculated, and (b) how the cut‑off weight, where applicable, was determined. 4. (a) As already stated, no change was made by Determination 10 to paragraphs 4(a), 5(a)-(c) and 5A. As to the variations which were made by Determination 10, the variations were calculated as follows: (i) The variation to paragraph 4(b) was calculated by an increase of 10% to the charge of $25.00 previously applicable for prescribed minimum landing charges. (ii) The variation to paragraph 4(c) was calculated by an increase of 10% to the charge of $12.50 previously applicable. (iii) The variation to paragraph 4(d) was calculated by an increase of 10% to the charge of $10 previously applicable. (iv) The variation to paragraph 5B was to increase the charge per landing by $0.45 per 1000kg MTOW and pro rata for part of 1000kg to $1.05 per 1000kg MTOW and pro rata for part of 1000kg. The reasons for the variations to paragraphs 4(b), 4(c), 4(d) and 5B made by Determination 10 were given in the Statement of Reasons. (b) None of the charges varied by Determination 10 involved a cut-off weight. 5. In respect of each purported "Reason": Reason (1) (a) further & better particulars of the costs, services and individual users referred to. (b) further & better particulars of the ICAO guidelines referred to. 5. Reason(1) (a)(i) The costs referred to are the costs of providing the services referred to below. (a)(ii) The services referred to as at 1 January 1994 include certain or all: Aircraft Movement Areas • Grounds • Runways • Taxiways • aprons • airside safety • airfield lighting • airside roads/lighting • aircraft parking areas • nose-in guidance • visual navigational aids Passenger Proceeding Areas • Forward airline support service areas • Aero bridges • Buses - airside • Departure lounges • Holding lounges • Immigration service areas • Custom service areas • Public address system • Closed circuit surveillance system • Lifts/escalators/moving walkways • Public amenities • Baggage makeup/handling/reclaim • Public areas in terminal • Land side road and lighting • Security systems • Covered walkways • Flight information display systems Security • Counter terrorist presence. (a)(iii) The "individual users" referred to comprise aircraft owners and/or operators using airports owned and/or operated by the FAC. (b) Publications entitled "Statements by the Council to Contracting States on Charges for Airports and Air Navigation Services", International Civil Aviation Organisation, and "Airport Economics Manual", International Civil Aviation Organisation, First Edition - 1991. Reason (2) Further & better particulars of matters included in "aeronautical expenses". Reason (2) The reference to "aeronautical expenses" is a reference to the costs of providing the services referred to in 5(a)(ii) above. Reason (3) This is not a reason for (any of) the Determination(s). This speaks of variations in the levels of charges imposed by Determination 9. Determination 10 does not speak of Determination 9. Determination 10 stands on its own. Further & better particulars of the extent to which this "reason" is referrable to any determination. Reason (3) Determination 10 varied only certain aeronautical charges imposed by previous Determinations. The reasons for the variations made by Determination 10 are particularised in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of the Statement of Reasons (insofar as the amendments to the charges in paragraphs 4(b), 4(c) and 4(d) are concerned), and in paragraphs (1), (2) and (4) of the Statement of Reasons (in relation to the amendment outlined to paragraph 5B, as clarified above). Reason 4 This is not a reason for (any of) the Determination(s). This speaks of a variation of the terminal charge in clause 5B. Determination 10 does not speak of variations. Further & better particulars are sought as to the charge in 5B. Reason (4) The reasons for the variation to paragraph 5B made by Determination 10 have been given in paragraphs (1), (2) and (4) of the Statement of Reasons, as clarified above. 6. Further & better particulars of the charge in 5A. None at all are given in the purported Statement of Reasons. 6. No variation was made to paragraph 5A by Determination 10. The revenue obtained by the FAC pursuant to the charge is reasonably related to the expenses incurred and to be incurred by the FAC by way of payments to the Australian Protective Service in providing the counter terrorist presence. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the statement of reasons and the further particulars provided did not state the reasons "why there is a charge [for example] of $5.34 per 1000 kg at Bankstown, and likewise in relation to all of the other very specific charges that are imposed by the determination." He submitted that the applicants, having been provided with the statement of reasons and the particulars, were "none the better informed as to why it is that the particular determinations have been made". He further submitted that even if Determination 10 was properly seen as a variation of earlier Determinations, the statement of reasons and particulars did not reveal why it had been decided to vary some charges, but not to vary others, and why variations in a particular amount had been made. He submitted that the respondent's annual report showed that there was significant cross subsidisation between various airports, underscoring the need for an explanation as to how the respondent had come to levy a flat fee. Further, it was submitted that the size of airports varied enormously, which suggested that the cost of the provision of, for example, security services would vary enormously, which made it more important to know how the figure had been arrived at. As I have stated, the applicants have only sought reasons for decision of clauses 4, 5, 5A and 5B of the determination. Counsel's submissions went beyond those paragraphs. However, the essential complaint was that there was no way of knowing why the particular basis of charging had been imposed in respect of the charges in clauses 4, 5, 5A and 5B. Determination 10 stated that it superseded all earlier determinations. The statement of reasons and particulars reveal that it was a consolidation of the previous determination together with the amendments made by Determination 10. The question which arises therefore, is whether the respondent was entitled to confine its s 13 statement of reasons to the reasons why the amendments were made or whether, in respect of each clause, whether amended or not, it is required to provide reasons for the decision, including an explanation of the basis upon which charges were made. In my opinion, the respondent was not entitled to confine its reasons to an explanation of why variations had been made. Determination 10 purported to be a determination in its own right. The applicants are entitled to be informed of the reasons for the imposition of the charges imposed by the clauses in question, regardless of whether those charges had been varied. I am also of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to know the reason why a particular basis of charging was used at the individual airports specified in the relevant clauses of the determination. This information is required because the basis of charging forms an integral part of the decision to impose charges. It also is a relevant matter in determining whether the respondent has complied with its statutory obligation under s 56(10) FAC Act. Section 13 also requires a decision-maker to state the findings on material questions of fact, referring to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based. Having regard to the provisions of s 56(10), I am of the opinion that the respondent is required to state its finding as to why a particular rate of charge had been imposed under the various clauses and to refer to the material upon which it based that finding. It is also required to provide particulars of the evidence on which it relied in making these findings. I am of the opinion that the respondent, in addition to providing reasons for the charges, is obliged to give its reasons as to why the particular variation was made to a charge. I do not consider that it was entitled to confine itself to a statement of reasons as to why a variation to the charges, generally, was made. Counsel did not make any submission as to whether it was alleged that all the responses to particulars were inadequate. Whilst it was necessary to refer to the particulars to ascertain whether there had been compliance with s 13, I do not propose to go through each of the particulars, and decide whether I should make an order in the same terms. I consider that the matters to which I have referred above, are the particulars which should be provided. I should state however, that the particulars sought in paragraphs 1 and 2 assume compliance with s 56(10). I do not consider that it is the function of particulars to make an assumption as to a matter and then seek particulars in respect of that assumption. In stating that, I do not imply that the respondent failed to comply with s 56(10). The particulars sought in paragraphs 1 and 2 are not appropriate because they seek more than s 13 of the ADJR Act requires. I certify that the preceding 19 pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Beazley. Associate: Dated: 21 December 1995. APPEARANCES Counsel for the Applicant: Messrs Campbell QC and Sullivan Solicitors for the Applicant: Messrs Middletons Moore & Bevin Counsel for the Respondent: Messrs A Robertson & Priestly Solicitors for the Respondent: Messrs Mallesons Stephens Jaques Dates of hearing: 4 April 1995