Odzic v Commonwealth of Australia

Adjournment application 11 At the commencement of the hearing of the appeal, counsel for the appellants applied for the hearing of the appeal to be adjourned to a date to be fixed. We refused that application and said that we would give our reasons later. These are those reasons. 12 The principal ground of the application was that, through the failure of the respondent to comply with directions, the appellants had been put in a position where they were not able to present their case and that a refusal to allow an adjournment would result in a serious injustice to them. 13 In our opinion, although there was some non-compliance with directions by the respondent, that non-compliance was minor and was not of such a nature that the appellants were not able to present their case. Although it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that they were not in a position to assist the Court with reference to the material to be the subject of the Court's consideration, in our opinion, to the extent to which cross-references were not available, that did not have the consequence that the appellants were not able to present their case. The material that was missing, in a particular form, at the commencement of the three-day appeal was available early in the course of the hearing of the appeal and we do not accept that the appellants were denied a reasonable opportunity to prepare the case to present to the Court with respect to that material. 14 We take into account that the appellants had limited resources but we also take into account that it was on 22 January 2016 that directions were made with a view to the appeal being set down for hearing beginning on 13 April 2016, that hearing date was confirmed by letter sent on 1 February 2016, and the appellants' submissions were then directed to be filed and served by 16 March 2016. This period for the appellants' submissions was extended on 26 February 2016 to 23 March 2016. We also take into account that the appellants knew the reasons for judgment of the primary judge in each case; they knew their own material; they knew their own case; they knew the respondent's submissions; and they had replied to those submissions in writing. 15 We have taken into account the material in the affidavits sworn by Ms Keith on 7 April 2016 and 12 April 2016 but there is nothing in those affidavits that persuades us that the appellants were prejudiced in the presentation of the appeal. 16 The appellants relied on Shannon v Commonwealth [2014] FCAFC 108; 318 ALR 420. In our opinion, the principles are not in doubt but each exercise of discretion to grant or refuse an adjournment must depend on the particular circumstances of the case.

The primary judge's reasons for judgment summarised 17 After discussing (at [7]-[18]) the relevant statutory framework, including the jurisdiction conferred by s 10AA of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) (FCCA Act), ss 81, 83, and 84-95 of the 2010 RTA and ss 7 and 8 of the Federal Circuit Court (Commonwealth Tenancy Disputes) Instrument 2015 (Cth) (Instrument), his Honour said (at [19]): Once it is established that a notice of termination has been served on the lessee, the Court must terminate the residential tenancy agreement. However, the date of vacant possession is still a matter for the Court's discretion. Section 8(2) of the Tenancy Disputes Instrument amends the [2010 RTA] so that the date for possession is the date that the Court considers appropriate. (Emphasis in original.) 18 After setting out some critical factual findings (mostly mentioned above and not now in dispute) the primary judge turned to the issues of predominant use of the premises and service of the termination notice.

Predominant use of the premises 19 Mr Odzic's evidence was that the Odzics and their two children lived on the premises, which consisted of five acres, with a residence occupying about half an acre. According to Mr Odzic, the house had three bedrooms, a dining room, kitchen and smaller rooms. In the context of the issue of predominant use, the primary judge particularly noted Mr Odzic's evidence that "[w]e have a few sheep which we kill for meat and occasionally sell to make a little money, and sometimes 2 or 3 cattle to keep the grass down as well". His Honour also noted that Mr Odzic deposed to having "7 containers ... on the land", each worth $3,000 and storing farm goods and equipment, as well as "an excellent quality farm shed", which had been built since 2001 at a cost of $36,000. 20 The primary judge referred to his consideration in Rigney at [22]-[23] about the meaning of s 7(h) of the 2010 RTA. His Honour (at [26]) did not accept that Mr Odzic was a witness of truth, adding that even if he did, he did not accept that Mr Odzic's evidence established that the premises were predominantly used for industrial or agricultural purposes, as Mr Odzic claimed. Noting that "industrial purposes" were not mentioned in s 7(h), his Honour added that "[i]f Mr Odzic meant to say 'business' purposes, the argument fails in any event. There is simply nothing to suggest any business purposes in the use of the Premises" (at [27]). His Honour also rejected Mr Odzic's claims regarding agricultural use, stating (at [28]): Keeping farm equipment, even a large amount of farm equipment does not, in my view, amount to agriculture. There was no evidence that the Odzics used any of this equipment and, if so, for what purpose. The only agricultural activities that were referred to in evidence were the keeping of a few sheep and a few cattle. However, the cattle were, it seems, only there to keep the grass down. I am not satisfied that that activity was the predominant use of the Premises. 21 The primary judge (at [30]) concluded that "[a]pplying a qualitative analysis to the evidence in this case, it cannot be said that keeping a few sheep and a few cattle was the predominant use of the Premises. Rather, they are used predominantly as a home for the Odzics and their two children".

Service of notice of termination 22 The primary judge held that the Commonwealth had served a notice of termination on the Odzics on 26 November 2014, as required by s 85 of the 2010 RTA. His Honour dealt with the issue of service of a notice of termination at [31]-[39] and at [47]-[55] of his reasons. The primary judge noted that there were two aspects to the Odzics' contention that they had not been validly served with a notice of termination: first, that the notices they were given did not amount to notices of termination; and secondly, that service of the notices was not proved, their argument being that the Commonwealth had only established service of an envelope. 23 The primary judge rejected the second aspect of their contention on the basis of the evidence before him. His Honour referred to the evidence of Ms Kylie Blackwood, for the Commonwealth, that Mr Michael Guest, a licensed process server, served the Odzics with a termination notice dated 24 November 2015. His Honour noted that Ms Blackwood's evidence was not the subject of objection and that she was not cross-examined on it. 24 The primary judge also referred (at [33]) to an affidavit sworn by Mr Guest in which Mr Guest deposed that he was given a number of envelopes by Ms Vivienne Li and Mr Joe Khayo of Wise McGrath, a firm of real estate agents. His Honour noted that there were no objections to this affidavit and Mr Guest was not required for cross-examination. Mr Guest's evidence was that an envelope addressed to the Odzics was amongst the envelopes he was given and that he was instructed to "attempt to serve the envelopes at the addresses marked on the front of each envelope". Mr Guest further stated that, as described in his previous affidavits of service, he then "served the envelopes at the addresses marked on the front of each envelope". The primary judge noted that Mr Guest's previous affidavit in relation to the Odzics was sworn on 1 December 2014 and was not objected to. In that affidavit Mr Guest stated that he delivered the notice of termination "by delivering the same to Stojan Odzic personally at 1932 Elizabeth Drive, Badgerys Creek in the State of New South Wales". Mr Guest deposed that he had the following conversation: "Are you Stojan Odzic?" He replied "Yes." I said "I have an envelope for you and Melitta Odzic". The primary judge recorded that Mr Guest stated that he then handed Mr Odzic the envelope. The primary judge observed that the Odzics did not deny this conversation and that they did not give evidence of the contents of the envelope. 25 The primary judge drew attention to an affidavit sworn by Ms Li saying that Mr Dinesh Thambyrajah, another employee of Wise McGrath, returned to the Castlereagh Street office with a bundle of sealed envelopes that he had collected from the Australian Government Solicitor. Ms Li said that she and Mr Khayo divided the envelopes into three piles and gave one pile to each of three process servers including Mr Guest. His Honour noted that there were no objections to Ms Li's affidavit and she was not required for cross-examination. 26 Lastly, the primary judge noted the affidavit affirmed by Ms Sarah Alderson about the preparation of the envelopes. Ms Alderson said in her affidavit that she prepared envelopes for everyone whose name appeared on a list attached to her affidavit. The primary judge noted that the Odzics were named on that list. Ms Alderson's evidence was that there was one envelope for each tenant, pair or group of tenants; that each envelope was labelled with the address for the relevant tenant; and that, on 24 and 25 November 2014, she inserted into separate envelopes, addressed respectively to each tenant or tenants, the notice of termination addressed to the relevant tenant or tenants. His Honour noted that the notices were annexed to the affidavit and included one addressed to the Odzics. His Honour further noted that Ms Alderson verified that each notice of termination was addressed to the same person or persons and contained the same address as the name and address appearing on the envelope before placing the notice in the envelope. Ms Alderson said she then sealed the envelope and, on 25 November 2015, she saw all the envelopes prepared by her being collected by Mr Thambyrajah. 27 The primary judge also noted that there was no objection to any of Ms Alderson's evidence and that it was never put to Ms Alderson in cross-examination that what was contained in her affidavit was incorrect. The primary judge rejected the present appellants' submission that Ms Alderson did not "evidence the envelope to the Odzics by attaching a copy to the affidavit in the usual way" and that there was "only hearsay evidence of the existence of such envelope with the address of the [Odzics] upon it." 28 On the basis of the evidence before him, the primary judge found that Mr Odzic was given an envelope with a notice of termination in it and, by extension, that Mrs Odzic was given or served with a notice of termination pursuant to s 223(1)(a)(ii) of the 2010 RTA. His Honour rejected the present appellants' submissions that the notice of termination was not "given" in accordance with s 223(1)(a) and s 85 of the 2010 RTA. 29 The present appellants contested the effectiveness of the service of the notice of termination on a number of other bases, each of which was also considered by the primary judge. His Honour held that s 85 of the 2010 RTA applied to the Commonwealth's termination of the residential tenancy agreement with the present appellants. His Honour found that the termination notice in this case met the formal requirements of the 2010 RTA. His Honour said that a termination notice under that Act must set out: (1) the residential premises concerned; (2) the day on which the residential tenancy agreement is terminated and by which vacant possession of the premises is to be given; (3) if the notice is not given under ss 84, 85, 96 or 97, the ground for the notice; and (4) any other matters prescribed by the Residential Tenancy Regulations 2010 (NSW). His Honour also stated that the termination notice must be in writing and be signed by the party giving the notice, or the party's agent, and a termination notice for a periodic agreement may specify a day other than the last day of the period for the payment of rent as the termination date (s 82). His Honour found (at [51]) that the "[t]he Notice of Termination in this case was dated 24 November 2014 and served on the Odzics at their home on 26 November 2014. It correctly identified the Premises, set out the day on which the agreement was to be terminated (15 June 2015) and the date on which vacant possession of the Premises was to be given, being the same date as the date of termination. It was in writing and signed by an agent for the Commonwealth. There were no relevant regulations". 30 The primary judge rejected the Odzics' submission that s 223 of the 2010 RTA did not apply to notices required to be served "by this Act" but only to notices served under a residential tenancy agreement, commenting that "[t]hat is simply wrong" and noting that the chapeau to s 223(1) provided: A notice or other document that is authorised or required by this Act or the regulations or a residential tenancy agreement to be given to or served on any person may be given or served by: ... (Emphasis added in the original.) 31 The primary judge also rejected the Odzics' other submissions concerning the service of the notice of termination, stating (at [53]-[55]): The Odzics next argue that Mr Guest's affidavit refers to a table but that there is none. They are wrong. The table is on the second page of the affidavit and includes their names. The final argument in relation to service is that service was required by the FCCA Act not the [2010 RTA] "as it is the former upon which the lessor moves not the latter". As I have explained earlier, the FCCA Act gives jurisdiction to this Court. An instrument made under the FCCA Act then stipulates the law that is to be applied in the exercise of that jurisdiction. The law to be applied is the [2010 RTA]. I reject the [Odzics'] argument in this respect. I would, in any event, have been satisfied that, by handing the envelope to Mr Odzic for both him and Mrs Odzic, the agent of the Commonwealth "gave" the document in the envelope to both of them. In those circumstances I am satisfied that a notice of termination was given to both Mr and Mrs Odzic in accordance with the requirements of the [2010 RTA]. 32 Accordingly, the primary judge held that the Commonwealth had given a notice of termination on the Odzics on 26 November 2014, as required by s 85 of the 2010 RTA and that the termination notice satisfied the requirements of s 82 of the 2010 RTA.

Constitutional and jurisdictional issues 33 The Odzics raised much the same constitutional and jurisdictional issues as the tenants in the other matters contesting the termination of their tenancies on Commonwealth land within, or proximate to, the airport site. These issues were addressed by the primary judge at [40] to [44] in Odzic. His Honour adopted the same approach to the issues as he did in Commonwealth of Australia (as represented by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) v Rigney (No 3) [2015] FCCA 3133 (Rigney). 34 The primary judge held in Rigney at [61] that there was, at the date of the application, a matter within the meaning of Ch III of the Constitution and s 5 of the FCCA Act, that the FCCA was required to resolve. His Honour, in Odzic at [44], noted that s 85 of the 2010 RTA, not s 94 (as in Rigney), was applicable in the Odzics' case. This was because the Odzics had not been in continual possession of the premises for 20 years or more. His Honour found that, as the Odzics had "put in issue whether, as a matter of fact, a termination notice was given to them", there was "an existing controversy which, when decided by the Court, will determine the respective rights of the Commonwealth and the Odzics" (Odzic, at [44]). 35 In Rigney, the primary judge rejected the submission that s 10AA of the FCCA Act attempted to grant the FCCA executive, as opposed to judicial, power (Rigney, at [77]). His Honour held that s 10AA of the FCCA Act was an exercise of the legislative power conferred by the Constitution on the Parliament (Rigney, at [83] and [94]). His Honour held that s 51 of the Constitution conferred legislative power to make the applicable laws and that the Instrument was not "unauthorised and ultra vires" that Commonwealth law. His Honour also held that the applicable Commonwealth law did not effect an acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms contrary to s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution (Rigney, at [114]). 36 In Odzic at [41]-[42], his Honour specifically rejected the present appellants' submission, referring to Re Residential Tenancies Tribunal (NSW); Ex parte Defence Housing Authority [1997] HCA 36; 190 CLR 410 (Henderson), that "for no sensible explanation the lessor has decided to sue the Respondents in its own courts". His Honour stated that "the issues in the proceedings were the polar opposite to those in this case", where "the Commonwealth is not seeking to restrain proceedings brought by a landowner in a state Tribunal, but is bringing proceedings as a landlord in a Federal Court constituted under Ch III of the Constitution" (Odzic, at [42]).

Appropriate date on which vacant possession was to be given 37 Having found that the Odzics had not vacated the premises as required by the notice of termination, the primary judge found the matters in s 85(3) of the 2010 RTA had been established and that the residential tenancy agreement had to be terminated. 38 The primary judge then considered the appropriate date for vacant possession to be given to the Commonwealth. His Honour had earlier acknowledged that this consideration would involve "some balancing of the parties' interests" and "could also involve the application of s 114" of the 2010 RTA, which provides for the operation of an order for possession to be suspended (Odzic, at [45]). 39 The primary judge began his inquiry by examining the history of the Commonwealth's land acquisition program in the Badgerys Creek area. This history was given by Mr Peter Robertson, a General Manager at the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. Mr Robertson was described as one of three senior executive service staff members managing the proposed Badgerys Creek airport project. Mr Robertson had responsibility for management of policy development for the project and project timeframes. 40 The primary judge described the reasons Mr Robertson gave in evidence as to why the Commonwealth urgently required vacant possession. The reasons given by Mr Robertson were: (a) to enable the Commonwealth to comply with its project timetable; (b) the growing incompatibility of continued residential accommodation with the ongoing investigation and demolition works, in terms of cost and delay impacts on the work at the site; and (c) concerns as to the safety and security of the remaining tenants and the site. 41 The primary judge summarised Mr Robertson's evidence in which he explained that planning for an airport requires substantial on-site technical work, including extensive investigations to support environmental assessment and geotechnical work by engineers and other consultants. Mr Robertson's evidence was that, since some tenants remained in occupation, the work had either been tailored to parts of the site in the possession of the Commonwealth or the Commonwealth had liaised with tenants to ensure that testing could be conducted safely without unnecessary disturbance. The primary judge noted that Mr Robertson's evidence did not deal directly with the part of the site on which the Odzics' premises were located, but that his evidence was that the planning, assessment, site management and preparation activities for the airport site were being undertaken on a "whole of site" basis for all of the land to be included in the airport site. 42 The primary judge summarised Mr Robertson's evidence concerning the process for accessing individual residential tenant blocks, which Mr Robertson described as being "extensive and time consuming". His Honour also summarised Mr Robertson's evidence regarding the timeframe for clearing the site and demolition activities. His Honour noted Mr Robertson's evidence that, as at 22 October 2015, 117 of an estimated 163 tenants had vacated the airport site and that, once the airport site was vacated and the demolition program completed, it would be significantly easier and less costly to secure the whole site. 43 The primary judge referred to Mr Robertson's cross-examination, noting that Mr Robertson had "accepted that his statement that the airport site was becoming increasingly derelict was a bit strong", but that his evidence was otherwise unaffected. The primary judge found Mr Robertson to be a truthful witness and accepted his evidence. 44 The primary judge went on to note cl 42.1 of the agreement, the contents of letters of 29 October 2014 and 10 June 2015 sent to the Odzics by an agent of the Commonwealth, and the substance of the notice of termination given to the Odzics on 26 November 2014: see above. 45 The primary judge then turned to the matters relied on by the Odzics in support of their submission that the Court should refuse the Commonwealth's application. Critically his Honour rejected the Odzics' contention that the power to make a "termination order" under s 85 of the 2010 RTA was discretionary once the Court was satisfied of the relevant matters as set out in s 85(3) of the 2010 RTA. This was because his Honour considered that the word "must" in s 85(3) unambiguously meant that if the FCCA is satisfied of these matters "there is only one decision that can be made, namely, the making of a termination order"(Odzic, at [82]-[84]). A "termination order" is defined in s 80 of the 2010 RTA to mean "an order terminating a residential tenancy agreement together with an order for possession of the residential premises". His Honour went on, however, to consider the other matters on which the Odzics relied on the basis that they might inform the question of the appropriate date by which vacant possession of the premises ought to be given to the Commonwealth. 46 The primary judge identified nine matters on which the Odzics relied. These matters, and the primary judge's conclusions in relation to each, are set out below.

(1) A claim for proprietary estoppel 47 The Odzics claimed that they had relied on representations allegedly made to Mr Odzic by an agent of the Commonwealth in December 2001, including representations that the Odzics would not be evicted from the Premises for 20 years "so long as [they] paid [their] rent on time" and that the Odzics would "have at least 12 months to vacate the premises if [the Commonwealth] should ever give notice to vacate the land". Mr Odzic stated that he and Mrs Odzic relied on these representations by entering into the original and later leases and by purchasing buildings and equipment for the land. 48 The primary judge noted that Mr Odzic was cross-examined on his affidavit. His Honour found that Mr Odzic "was not an impressive witness" and that "Mr Odzic's evidence under cross-examination establishe[d] ... that he had fabricated his evidence about the representations made to him". His Honour (at [90]) explained that: It appeared to me that he gave whatever evidence suited his case and, when challenged on any aspect of that evidence, he changed it again to suit his case. I formed the view at the hearing that he was not telling the truth in the witness box and I do not accept any of his evidence apart from the fact that he lives on the Premises with his wife and two children. In arriving at this conclusion, I have taken into account the gravity of such a finding: sub-s.140(2)(c) of the Evidence Act 1995; Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336; Saad v Fares [2015] NSWCA 385. 49 After observing that Mrs Odzic did not give evidence, the primary judge held that there was "no foundation for the Odzics' claim that a proprietary estoppel [had] arisen in their favour" (at [92]).

(2) Loss of investment in the land 50 The Odzics claimed that, if forced to move, they would lose their investment in the land. The primary judge rejected this claim because he did not believe Mr Odzic's evidence and, in any event, any amount spent by the Odzics on the premises was spent was "with full knowledge" of the fact that they were tenants and that there was a real possibility that they would be required to vacate the land in the event that the Commonwealth decided to use the land for other purposes, including for an airport.

(3) Age and health 51 The Odzics argued that they were "relatively aged" and did not wish to move as it would impact their health and family. The primary judge held that "[t]here was no evidence about the health of either the Odzics or their children" and that although "it might be understandable that they do not wish to move, the fact that they must move is a consequence of being given a termination notice" (at [94]).

(4) Lack of urgency 52 The Odzics submitted that there was no urgency for the Commonwealth to assume vacant possession because the Commonwealth had "given a 99 year right of refusal to open or use the site as a commercial airport to Macquarie Airports" (at [95]). 53 The Odzics similarly submitted that there was no pending commercial requirement for the termination orders for over 12 years and there was significant doubt as to the true purpose of the Commonwealth in applying for the orders. 54 The primary judge rejected both these submissions finding that they were not supported by the material before the Court. His Honour referred to the Odzics' reference to "extensive documents" but observed that "none of those documents is specifically addressed in [the Odzics'] submissions" (at [97]). His Honour held that none of the matters to which the Odzics referred undermined Mr Robertson's evidence.

(5) Lack of suitable or available alternative leaseholds 55 The Odzics claimed that there were no suitable or available alternative similar leaseholds in the region of Badgerys Creek. The primary judge rejected this claim on the basis that it was not supported by any evidence. His Honour (at [102]-[103]) explained that: Mr Odzic stated in his affidavit that they had been searching for alternative premises since October 2014 but had been unable to locate anything suitable. He also stated that since March 2015 there were big crowds of people at any available properties with many of them being Badgerys Creek residents. I reject this evidence for the reasons I have given about Mr Odzic's credit. In any event, the evidence is so general as to be unhelpful. The folder of material referred to ... above included some documents relevant to the availability of accommodation in the Greater Western Sydney region. The first of those documents related to community housing. Mr and Mrs Odzic did not give any evidence about their financial circumstances other than that they were employed. For that reason, the availability of community housing is not relevant to their circumstances. The second group of documents consists of advertisements for rental accommodation that seem to have been downloaded from an online real estate website. However, they do not establish anything relevant other than that, at certain dates the properties shown in the advertisements were available for rent for particular amounts. There is no evidence that these were the only properties available, or what properties were available at other times or in other locations. None of this material carries any weight.

(6) Failure to offer compensation 56 The Odzics complained that the Commonwealth had not offered them any compensation for "the loss of their lease, the property affixed to it, or for the costs of complying with the eviction notice" (at [104]). His Honour held that there was no basis in evidence or submissions for any right to compensation. The primary judge also stated that it was not clear how such a right might bear upon the determination of an appropriate date for vacant possession of the premises, especially as there was no evidence about the Odzics' financial means.

(7) Proper parties to the proceeding 57 The seventh argument raised by the Odzics related to "the proper parties to the proceedings" (at [105]). Mr Odzic said in his affidavit that "we paid the rent on the basis referred to above and that all four of us were in joint occupation of the land, i.e. as a family". The primary judge rejected this argument on the basis that it relied on evidence of Mr Odzic, which his Honour had rejected. His Honour added (at [105]) that "to the extent that the Odzics rely on this to suggest that their children are co-tenants, that reliance is misplaced", because the 2010 RTA "has specific provisions dealing with co-tenancy", none of which were applicable on the evidence in the case.

(8) Express termination provision in tenancy agreement 58 The Odzics submitted that cl 42.2 of their tenancy agreement was an express provision regarding termination, and that their rights were governed by that clause. The Odzics submitted that, under that clause, in order for the Commonwealth to have the right to terminate the agreement, the Commonwealth had to require vacant possession, and that could not occur without a decision of the relevant Minister. The primary judge rejected this submission, on the basis, first, that the agreement was subject to the 2010 RTA and, in consequence, any termination must take effect under Pt 5 of that Act; and, secondly, that Mr Robertson gave evidence that the Commonwealth required vacant possession of the premises, thus meeting "the condition precedent [in cl 42] to the right of the Commonwealth to terminate the [a]greement by six months' written notice". 59 The primary judge also rejected a related argument that the agreement could not be terminated because no party had applied to the Tribunal for termination as required by cl 8 of the agreement. The primary judge rejected this argument on the basis that cl 8 of the agreement "says no such thing. It relates to the use of the Premises". His Honour added that "Note 8 in the [a]greement does refer to applications to the Tribunal for termination[] orders, but it only reflects the provisions of the [2010 RTA]".

(9) Service of notice before the introduction of s 10AA of the FCCA Act 60 The Odzics submitted that the notice of termination that they received was not effective for the purposes of Commonwealth law because it was served before s 10AA was introduced into the FCCA Act. In support of this submission it was said that "the effect of the Commonwealth law was to repeal the State law with respect to leases at Badgerys Creek", referring to only s 9 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth). The primary judge noted, however, that this section had been repealed in 2011 by the Acts Interpretation Amendment Act 2011 (Cth). 61 The Odzics further submitted that to permit the Commonwealth to rely on it would give retrospective operation to s 10AA of the FCCA Act. The primary judge rejected this argument and stated that "[a]n Act does not have retrospective application simply because it requires consideration of past events. Further, just because notice was given 'under' the [2010 RTA] before this Court ha[d] jurisdiction in relation to Commonwealth tenancy disputes does not mean that it was not given 'under' the Act once the Court did have that jurisdiction". 62 The primary judge relevantly concluded (at [113]-[118]): Having considered the circumstances of this case as outlined above, I am satisfied that the appropriate date on which Mr and Mrs Odzic are to give vacant possession of the Premises is 28 December 2015, but that the order for vacant possession should be suspended until 25 January 2016 on the basis of the following reasons. First, I fully accept the general importance of the development of a further airport in Sydney for both the economic and social wellbeing of this state, if not, this country. Secondly, significant time, effort and money has already been put into preparation of the site for the future development of the airport and the continued presence of tenants on the airport site is to increase the amount of costs likely to be incurred by the Commonwealth in that development. Thirdly, the safety of individual tenants will diminish as more and more tenants vacate the site. Fourthly, Mr and Mrs Odzic have been on notice since at least the beginning of the current residential tenancy agreement of the possibility [that] the land in Badgerys Creek will be used as an airport and the consequent need for them to give vacant possession to the Commonwealth for that purpose. Fifthly, in fixing that date, I have taken into account the time of year, even though that was not addressed by any of the parties. 63 Accordingly, his Honour made the orders set out at [9] above.

Grounds of Appeal 64 The grounds of appeal in the proposed amended notice of appeal were as follows: (1) The primary Judge erred in not holding that the Federal Court Legislation Amendment Act 2015 [Cth] is invalid as involving the imposition of administrative power of a State tribunal upon a Chapter III court. (2) The primary Judge erred in holding that the Respondent was empowered to make Federal Circuit Court [Commonwealth Tenancy Disputes] Instrument 2015 [Cth]. (3) The primary Judge erred in not holding that the Federal Court Legislation Amendment Act 2015 [Cth] is invalid as a law for the acquisition of property of the Appellant other than on just terms. (4) The primary Judge erred in holding that the termination notice had been given. (5) The primary Judge erred in holding that the termination notice was valid and effective. (6) The primary Judge erred in not admitting evidence of the Appellant. (7) The primary Judge erred in ordering termination forthwith and vacation on or before 28 12 2015 of the premises the subject of the action. (8) The primary Judge erred in finding that the agreement was a residential tenancy subject to Residential Tenancy Act 2010 [NSW]. (9) The primary Judge erred in not recusing himself from the matter before him in circumstances where he heard other cases in which he had made findings of credit and similar findings of fact against other Commonwealth tenants at Badgerys Creek. (10) The primary Judge erred in making tenancy orders having final effect which in the circumstances was an abuse of process and/or has prejudiced the appeals of the Appellants. (11) The primary judge erred in deferring costs or not making any orders as to costs before pronouncing final judgment. (12) The primary Judge erred in not having or having sufficient regard to expert evidence including but not limited to that of Simone Fogarty. (13) The primary Judge erred in accepting the Commonwealth's urgent need for vacant possession when there was no real evidence to support their claims and in doing so, not balancing the interests of both parties. (14) The primary Judge erred in accepting Mr Robertson's statements regarding the construction and development of the airport, and not considering the long history of uncertainty and the changing position of the Commonwealth with regard to the building (or not building) of the airport. Extensive documents were submitted by the Respondents supporting these delays, which were not considered by the Primary Judge. (15) The primary Judge erred in stating the Respondents were aware of the possibility that the site may be developed for the purposes of the development of an airport and disregarding that since December 2000 the Respondents reasonably believed Badgerys Creek was not being considered as a site for the airport. (16) The primary Judge erred in accepting the Commonwealth had provided satisfactory assistance for relocating by Ms Salkeld in circumstances where government and non-government accommodation services, information about the rental process, local government pick up services, Centrelink loan programs and local charity assistance provided little or no assistance to the majority of Respondents. (17) The primary judge erred in not holding that the Respondent was estopped in the circumstances from relying upon any notice to quit or any order of the Court that had the effect of giving vacant possession of the land forthwith. (18) The primary judge erred in not considering compensation to the Appellant as a condition of the making of any order for possession, or for suspending such order for a period of years. (19) The primary Judge erred in making tenancy orders having final effect and thereafter making directions at the request of the Respondent on costs which in the circumstances was an abuse of process. 65 The underlined paragraphs identify proposed new grounds of appeal raised by the Odzics for which leave was required. The paragraphs struck through, grounds 6, 11 and 19, reflect the grounds in the proposed amended notice of appeal which the appellants notified the Court were abandoned. It is also clear that ground 9 concerning alleged bias was not pressed in that form in this appeal. 66 The proposed amendments, apart from paragraphs 14, 15 and 17, were opposed by the Commonwealth on several grounds, including that some of the new grounds had not been argued below or were inconsistent with the way in which the Odzics' case had been presented below. 67 Since the application to amend to add grounds 14, 15 and 17 was not opposed, we would grant leave so to amend. 68 It is therefore necessary to rule on the application to amend to add grounds 10, 12, 13, 16 and 18. The Court indicated that it would rule on the proposed amendments in its final reasons for judgment. 69 The principles in relation to an application to amend a notice of appeal are well-established. As a Full Court said recently in Fletcher v Nextra Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 52; 229 FCR 153 at [99]: Parties are bound by the way they conduct their case at trial: see Overton Investment Pty Ltd v Murphy [2001] NSWCA 183 per Mason P (at [86]-[87]) (Sheller JA and Beazley JA agreeing); University of Wollongong v Metwally (No 2) (1985) 59 ALJR 481 (at 483); Chilcotin Pty Ltd v Cenelage Pty Ltd [1999] NSWCA 11 (at [15]); Thompson v Palmer (1933) 49 CLR 507 per Starke J (at 528-529); Haig v Minister Administering National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (1994) 85 LGERA 143 per Kirby P (at 155); Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1 per Gibbs CJ, Wilson, Brennan and Dawson JJ, Deane J contra) (at 7). 70 Although a question of law may be raised for the first time on appeal where it is expedient and in the interests of justice that that should be permitted to be done, this exception will not apply where, if the new ground could possibly have been met by calling evidence at the hearing or if, had the ground been raised below, the respondent might have conducted the case differently at trial: Multicon Engineering Pty Ltd v Federal Airports Corporation (1997) 47 NSWLR 631 at 645 per Mason P (Gleeson CJ and Priestley JA agreeing). 71 Also, the discretion to permit an amendment should not be exercised favourably where the proposed ground of appeal is self-evidently bound to fail. 72 Applying these principles, we would refuse leave to amend to add proposed ground 10, that the primary judge erred in making tenancy orders having final effect which in the circumstances was an abuse of process and/or has prejudiced the appeal of the appellants. First, once the trial concluded and, after due consideration, the primary judge had reached a decision on the matters in dispute between the parties, his Honour was obliged to make final orders that gave effect to that decision (as explained in his reasons for judgment). There may be unusual or particular circumstances in which the obligation to make final orders on reaching a decision after trial does not arise, but this case is not one of them. As the primary judge's reasons show, his Honour decided, after trial and due consideration, that the Commonwealth should succeed in its application, the Odzics having failed to make out their grounds in opposition. Further, the appellants did not acquire a right of appeal to this Court from his Honour's decision until his Honour made the orders that gave effect to his decision on the matters in dispute between them and the Commonwealth. Proposed ground 10 does not, so far as we can see, correspond to any submission made by the Odzics at first instance, to the effect the primary judge should not make orders in the terms sought by the Commonwealth in the event that the Commonwealth was the successful party. The result is that the appellants have not indicated, and we cannot discern, any tenable basis for the proposed ground of appeal. 73 We would also refuse leave to amend to add ground 12, that the primary judge erred in not having or having insufficient regard to expert evidence including but not limited to that of Ms Simone Fogarty. After judgment was reserved and in response to the Court's request to the parties, the Commonwealth provided a note to the effect that: (a) No evidence was admitted in any of the Federal Circuit Court proceedings from which the Under 20 Appeals are brought (the Under 20s Proceedings Below) from any of: • Mr Azar; • Ms Simone Fogarty; or • Mr Lopco Neskovski. (b) No party sought to adduce evidence from Mr Azar in the Under 20s Proceedings Below. (c) The appellants sought to rely in the Under 20s Proceedings Below on evidence from Ms Simone Fogarty, Ms Leanne Uren, and Mr Lopco Neskovski which was purported by the respondents in those proceedings to be expert evidence, but all such evidence was specifically rejected by the trial judge. (d) The attempt to rely on the purported expert evidence of Ms Fogarty, Ms Uren, and Mr Neskovski, together with the rejection of that evidence by the trial judge is recorded at pages 127 and 167-168 of the transcript of the hearing of the Under 20 Proceedings Below, but the relevant portion of the transcript was not included in the appeal book and was not therefore evidence in the appeals. (e) The Respondent did not propose inclusion of the relevant portion of the transcript in the appeal book because the rejection of the evidence by the trial judge was not challenged in the Notices of Appeal. 74 In their note, also provided in response to the Court's request, the appellants confirmed that the primary judge declined to admit the evidence of Ms Simone Fogarty, Ms Leanne Uren, and Mr Lopco Neskovski. The appellants did not dispute that no party had sought to adduce evidence from Mr Azar in his proceeding. We proceed to consider the proposed ground on this basis. 75 Before doing so, we observe that the appellants submitted, in the note to which we have just referred, that proposed ground 12 should be read with ground 6, that the primary judge erred in not admitting evidence of the appellant. We observe, however, that the appellants specifically abandoned that ground: see document headed "Corrected - appellant's abandoned grounds of appeal" provided to the Court on 27 April 2016; see also appeal transcript p 180. So far as the appellants' note complained about a ruling or rulings by the primary judge concerning the evidence of Ms Simone Fogarty, Ms Leanne Uren or Mr Lopco Neskovski, this was not raised in any ground or proposed ground of appeal. 76 Proposed ground 12 finds no basis in the proceeding before the primary judge concerning the Odzics or in his Honour's reasons for judgment in relation to them. The primary judge did not consider any expert evidence in the Odzics' case because there was no expert evidence adduced in their case in the FCCA. The primary judge cannot therefore have erred in the way suggested in the proposed ground. We note that the Commonwealth did not seek to rely on the evidence of Mr Azar in the Odzics' case, presumably because the Commonwealth considered that his evidence was not relevant to the issues in dispute. We also note that his Honour did have regard to a folder of material that included some documents that his Honour considered relevant to the Odzics' arguments regarding a pending commercial requirement for termination and the availability of accommodation. Even if this material were characterised as expert evidence (though it is not), it is clear from his Honour's reasons that he examined this material carefully, although he attributed no, or little, weight to it. The present appellants made no submissions that his Honour erred in this latter regard. 77 In relation to proposed ground 13, that the primary judge erred in accepting the Commonwealth's urgent need for vacant possession when there was no real evidence to support their claims and in doing so, not balancing the interests of both parties, we would allow the amendment as it turns on an analysis of the primary judge's reasons for judgment and no apparent prejudice will be caused to the respondent. 78 In relation to proposed ground 16, that the primary judge erred in accepting the Commonwealth had provided satisfactory assistance for relocating by Ms Wendy Salkeld, the Place Manager, in circumstances where government and non-government accommodation services, information about the rental process, local government pick up services, Centrelink loan programs and local charity assistance provided little or no assistance to the majority of tenants, leave to amend should be refused. First, the proposed ground finds no basis in the reasons for judgment of the primary judge in relation to the Odzics. In their case, the primary judge did not make any finding about relocation assistance provided by the Commonwealth by Ms Salkeld or anyone else. Secondly, the proposed ground does not correspond to a ground taken by the Odzics at first instance. Thirdly, the proposed ground could have been met by evidence at first instance, if developed before the primary judge. 79 In relation to proposed ground 18, that the primary judge erred in not considering compensation to the appellants as a condition of the making of any order for possession, or for suspending such order for a period of years, leave to amend to add this ground should also be refused. Although the appellants raised the issue of compensation at first instance, the primary judge (at [104]) found that the Odzics had provided no basis in evidence or submissions to support the existence of any obligation on the Commonwealth's part to offer to compensate them. As discussed hereafter, his Honour rejected Mr Odzic's evidence in so far as it might have been relevant to this issue. The submissions on behalf of the Odzics on appeal did not address this claim or proposed ground of appeal.

Parties' submissions - common issues 80 The common issues were identified by the appellants as, first, a separation of powers issue; secondly, that there was no "matter before the FCCA"; thirdly, that there was no power in s 51 of the Constitution or other legislative power to make the amendments to the FCCA Act; fourthly, that the Instrument was invalid; fifthly, that there was an impairment of the constitutional guarantee in s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution dealing with acquisition of property other than on just terms; and sixthly, that there was apprehended institutional bias. 81 The revised written submissions of the appellants on common issues also included a number of paragraphs, [33]-[44], referring to the evidence of Mr Robertson which was said to be common to the several matters. 82 Before addressing these matters it is convenient to set out the statutory provisions. 83 By the Federal Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2015 (Cth), which by s 2 commenced on 26 February 2015, the FCCA Act was amended as set out in the applicable items in Sch 2. By Item 5(a) of Sch 2 the amendments were said to apply, relevantly, to "a lease, licence or other arrangement entered into before the day this item commences and a Commonwealth tenancy dispute between the parties to the lease, licence or other arrangement that arises before, on or after that day; …". 84 The relevant operative provisions were as follows: Commonwealth tenancy dispute means a matter: (a) involving a lease, licence or other arrangement to possess, occupy or use land and a dispute about: (i) the recovery of rent or other payments payable under or in relation to the lease, licence or other arrangement; or (ii) the termination of the lease, licence or other arrangement; or (iii) the possession, occupation or use of the land; and (b) in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party. … 3 After subsection 10(1) Insert: (1A) The Federal Circuit Court of Australia also has such original jurisdiction as is vested in it by a legislative instrument made under section 10AA. 4 After section 10 Insert: 10AA Original jurisdiction - Commonwealth tenancy disputes (1) The Federal Circuit Court of Australia has jurisdiction to hear and determine a Commonwealth tenancy dispute between the parties to a lease, licence or other arrangement in which: (a) the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is: (i) the lessor (other than as a sublessor); or (ii) the licensor (other than as a sublicensor); or (iii) the grantor of a right or permission to possess, occupy or use land owned by the Commonwealth; and (b) a person other than: (i) the Commonwealth; or (ii) a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth; or (iii) a Commonwealth officer or employee; is: (iv) the lessee (other than as a sublessee); or (v) the licensee (other than as a sublicensee); or (vi) the grantee of the right or permission. (2) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, confer jurisdiction on the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in respect of any other specified Commonwealth tenancy dispute. Note: For specification by class, see subsection 13(3) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. (3) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make provision for and in relation to all or any of the following matters in respect of a Commonwealth tenancy dispute: (a) the rights of the parties to the Commonwealth tenancy dispute; (b) the law (whether a law of the Commonwealth or a law of a State or Territory) to be applied in determining the Commonwealth tenancy dispute (the applicable law); (c) any modifications of the applicable law that are to apply in relation to the Commonwealth tenancy dispute; (d) the powers that the Federal Circuit Court of Australia may exercise under the applicable law; (e) if the Federal Circuit Court of Australia makes an order when exercising jurisdiction over the Commonwealth tenancy dispute - the powers that may be exercised when executing the order or a class of orders. 85 Section 12 of the Legislation Act 2003 (Cth) was in the following terms, so far as relevant: 12 Commencement of legislative instruments and notifiable instruments … Retrospective application (2) A provision of a legislative instrument or notifiable instrument does not apply in relation to a person (other than the Commonwealth or an authority of the Commonwealth) if the provision commences before the day the instrument is registered, to the extent that as a result: (a) the person's rights as at that day would be affected so as to disadvantage the person; or (b) liabilities would be imposed on the person in respect of anything done or omitted to be done before that day. (3) However, subject to subsection (2), a legislative instrument or notifiable instrument may provide that a provision of the instrument commences before the day the instrument is registered. (4) The effect of subsection (2) or (3) in relation to an instrument is subject to any contrary provision in an Act. … 86 The Instrument, as originally made, was in the following terms: 4 Definitions In this instrument: Act means the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999. applicable NSW law has the meaning given by subsection 7(2). Part 2 - Commonwealth tenancy disputes involving land in New South Wales 5 Operation of this Part (1) This Part makes provision in relation to the following matters in respect of a Commonwealth tenancy dispute involving land in New South Wales: (a) the rights of the parties to the dispute; (b) the law to be applied in determining the dispute; (c) the powers that the Federal Circuit Court of Australia may exercise under that law; (d) the powers that may be exercised when executing an order made by the Court. (2) This Part does not apply in relation to a Commonwealth tenancy dispute involving land in New South Wales unless the dispute involves a tenancy within the meaning of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW). (3) Nothing in this Part has effect so as to confer non-judicial power on the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, unless the non-judicial power is incidental to the exercise of judicial power by the Court. 6 Rights of the parties (1) This section applies to a party to a Commonwealth tenancy dispute involving land in New South Wales if: (a) the party is a tenant within the meaning of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW); and (b) the Federal Circuit Court of Australia has jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute. (2) The party must not make an application to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) in relation to a lease, licence or other arrangement to possess, occupy or use land that is the subject of the dispute. 7 Law to be applied (1) In determining a Commonwealth tenancy dispute involving land in New South Wales, the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) and any regulations made under that Act are to be applied: (a) to the extent necessary to determine the dispute; and (b) subject to the modifications set out in section 8 of this instrument. (2) The law mentioned in subsection (1) is the applicable NSW law. 8 Modifications of applicable NSW law (1) The applicable NSW law is to be applied as if: (a) a reference to the Tribunal were a reference to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia; and (b) a reference to the principal registrar of the Tribunal were a reference to a Registrar of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia; and (c) a reference to the Sheriff, or to a sheriff's officer, were a reference to the Sheriff of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. (2) The Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) is to be applied as if it included the following section: Despite anything else in this Act, if the Federal Circuit Court of Australia makes a termination order in respect of residential premises, the Court may make such orders as it considers appropriate in relation to the day vacant possession of the premises is to be given to the landlord. 9 Powers of the Court In determining a Commonwealth tenancy dispute involving land in New South Wales, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia may exercise any powers that are: (a) powers of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal under the applicable NSW law; and (b) relevant to determining the dispute. 10 Powers when executing orders made by the Court (1) If the Federal Circuit Court of Australia makes an order when exercising jurisdiction over a Commonwealth tenancy dispute involving land in New South Wales: (a) the Federal Circuit Court of Australia may exercise any powers of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal under the applicable NSW law; and (b) a Registrar of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia may exercise any powers of the principal registrar of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal under the applicable NSW law; and (c) subject to subsection (2), the Sheriff or a Deputy Sheriff of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia may exercise any powers of a sheriff's officer under section 7A of the Sheriff Act 2005 (NSW); to the extent that those powers are relevant to the execution or enforcement of the order. (2) In exercising a power of a sheriff's officer under section 7A of the Sheriff Act 2005 (NSW) to execute a warrant for possession of residential premises, the Sheriff or a Deputy Sheriff of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia: (a) may obtain the assistance of a member or special member of the Australian Federal Police; and (b) must not enter a dwelling house between 9 pm one day and 6 am the next day unless the Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff reasonably believes that it would not be practicable to execute the warrant at another time; and (c) must not use more force, or subject any person on the premises to greater indignity, than is necessary and reasonable to execute the warrant; and (d) must not do anything that is likely to cause the death of, or grievous bodily harm to, any person on the premises unless the Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff reasonably believes that doing that thing is necessary to protect life or prevent serious injury to another person (including the Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff). (3) To avoid doubt, nothing in this section limits any other power of: (a) the Federal Circuit Court of Australia; or (b) a Registrar of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia; or (c) the Sheriff or a Deputy Sheriff of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. 87 The 2010 RTA, the applicable New South Wales law, contained the following relevant provisions. 88 In s 3, residential premises was defined to mean any premises or part of premises (including any land occupied with the premises) used or intended to be used as a residence. The same section defined tenant to mean: (a) the person who has the right to occupy residential premises under a residential tenancy agreement, or (b) the person to whom such a right passes by transfer or operation of the law, or (c) a sub-tenant of a tenant, and includes a prospective tenant. 89 Section 3 defined termination notice and termination order by reference to s 80 of the 2010 RTA. 90 Section 7 provided that the 2010 RTA does not apply, relevantly, to "(h) premises used for residential purposes, if the predominant use of the premises is for the purposes of a trade, profession, business or agriculture". 91 Section 18 provided that a fixed term agreement that continues after the day on which the fixed term ends continues to apply: (a) as if the term of the agreement were replaced by a periodic agreement, and (b) on the same terms as immediately before the end of the fixed term. 92 Part 5 of the 2010 RTA dealt with the termination of residential tenancy agreements. Section 80 provided that in Pt 5 termination date meant the day specified in a termination notice as the day on which the residential tenancy agreement is terminated and by which vacant possession of the residential premises is to be given; termination notice meant a notice terminating a residential tenancy agreement; and termination order meant an order terminating a residential tenancy agreement together with an order for possession of the residential premises. 93 Part 5 included s 82 dealing with the requirements of termination notices: (1) A termination notice must set out the following matters: (a) the residential premises concerned, (b) the day on which the residential tenancy agreement is terminated and by which vacant possession of the premises is to be given, (c) if the notice is not given under section 84, 85, 96 or 97, the ground for the notice, (d) any other matters prescribed by the regulations. (2) A termination notice must be in writing and be signed by the party giving the notice or the party's agent. (3) A termination notice for a periodic agreement may specify a day other than the last day of a period for the payment of rent as the termination date. 94 Part 5 also included ss 84 and 85, which provided as follows: 84 End of residential tenancy agreement at end of fixed term tenancy (1) A landlord may, at any time before the end of the fixed term of a fixed term agreement, give a termination notice for the agreement that is to take effect on or after the end of the fixed term. (2) The termination notice must specify a termination date that is on or after the end of the fixed term and not earlier than 30 days after the day on which the notice is given. (3) The Tribunal must, on application by a landlord, make a termination order if it is satisfied that a termination notice was given in accordance with this section and the tenant has not vacated the premises as required by the notice. (4) This section does not apply to a residential tenancy agreement if the tenant has been in continual possession of the same residential premises for a period of 20 years or more and the fixed term of the original fixed term agreement has ended. 85 Termination of periodic agreement (1) A landlord may, at any time, give a termination notice for a periodic agreement. (2) The termination notice must specify a termination date that is not earlier than 90 days after the day on which the notice is given. (3) The Tribunal must, on application by a landlord, make a termination order if it is satisfied that a termination notice was given in accordance with this section and the tenant has not vacated the premises as required by the notice. (4) This section does not apply to a residential tenancy agreement if the tenant has been in continual possession of the same residential premises for a period of 20 years or more. 95 Part 6 of the 2010 RTA included the following provisions: 119 Prohibition on certain recovery proceedings in courts A landlord or former landlord must not commence proceedings against a tenant or former tenant of the landlord in the Supreme Court, the District Court or the Local Court to obtain recovery of possession of residential premises subject to a residential tenancy agreement. 120 Repossession of residential premises - offences (1) A person must not enter residential premises for the purposes of taking possession of those premises before or after the end of a residential tenancy agreement unless: (a) the person is acting in accordance with a warrant arising out of an order for possession of the Tribunal or a writ or warrant arising out of a judgment or order of a court, or (b) the tenant has abandoned the premises or given vacant possession of the premises. Maximum penalty: 200 penalty units. … 121 Enforcement of orders for possession (1) The principal registrar of the Tribunal may, on the application of a person in whose favour an order for possession was made, issue a warrant for possession of the residential premises concerned if the principal registrar is satisfied that the order or a condition of suspension of the order has not been complied with. (2) An application for a warrant for possession may be made immediately, if the order for possession so provides, or not more than 30 days after the date by which vacant possession was required or within such further period as the Tribunal may permit. (3) Without limiting subsection (2), the Tribunal may permit an application to be made within a further period if the delay in making the application is attributable to genuine attempts by the applicant to reach agreement with the tenant for reinstatement of the tenancy. (4) A warrant for possession is to be in the approved form and must authorise a sheriff's officer to enter specified residential premises and to give possession to the person specified in the warrant. Note. See section 7A of the Sheriff Act 2005 for provisions relating to the enforcement of warrants. The submissions of the parties on common issues of law and consideration of those submissions

Whether infringing separation of powers principle 96 Notwithstanding reference to a separation of powers issue in the revised written submissions on common issues, the Odzics did not apparently rely on the separation of powers argument and it does not therefore appear necessary to consider the argument in their appeal. The particular argument, that the orders sought by the Commonwealth in its application in the FCCA were beyond power as involving an exercise of non-judicial power by a federal court contrary to Ch III of the Constitution, was apparently made only in the appeals in which the tenants of land within the airport site had been in continual possession of the same residential premises for 20 years or more (the 20 years and over appeals). In that circumstance the orders sought by the Commonwealth required an exercise of power under s 94(1) of the 2010 RTA and s 10AA of the FCCA Act, which it was submitted by the tenants in those cases involved an exercise of non-judicial power by a federal court. 97 Section 94(1), which was a focus of the separation of powers argument, was inapplicable in the Odzics' case, where they had been in possession of the premises for less than 20 years. In their case, the orders made by the primary judge and sought by the Commonwealth were in exercise of s 85 of the 2010 RTA and s 10AA of the FCCA Act. Section 85 provided for the termination of a periodic agreement, which is what the agreement had become (as discussed hereafter). After receiving an application under the 2010 RTA in a proceeding commenced after the minimum notice period, the State Tribunal or the FCCA must, by virtue of s 85(3) of the 2010 RTA, make a termination order if it is satisfied that the termination notice was given in accordance with s 85 and that the tenant has not vacated the premises as required by the notice. This involved no exercise of discretion such as that impugned in the related appeals involving s 94(1) of the 2010 RTA and s 10AA of the FCCA Act. 98 In the Odzics' case, as in the case of other tenants who had been in possession of the leased premises for less than 20 years, a question of the appropriate exercise of discretion arose at a different point. In a case in which the FCCA exercises power under s 85 of the 2010 RTA and s 10AA of the FCCA Act, s 8 of the Instrument modifies the 2010 RTA, with respect to the conferral of discretion "in relation to the day vacant possession of the premises is to be given to the landlord". Such is the effect of s 8(2) of the Instrument which provides that the 2010 RTA must be read as including a provision that, if the FCCA makes a termination order in respect of residential premises, the Court may make such orders as it considers appropriate in relation to the day vacant possession of the premises is to be given to the landlord. The exercise of discretion in relation to the day vacant possession is to be given does not, on any view, involve a conferral of non-judicial power. 99 In case we have misunderstood the appellants' submissions, however, we can discern no error in the conclusion reached by the primary judge at [43] of his reasons for judgment that any contention that the relevant laws of the Commonwealth impaired the separation of powers principle was to be rejected. We also note the terms of s 5(3) of the Instrument which state that nothing in ss 5 to 10 of the Instrument has effect so as to confer non-judicial power on the FCCA, unless the non-judicial power is incidental to the exercise of judicial power by that court. 100 Further, we observe that we cannot derive any particular assistance from what was said by Mason J in Commonwealth v Hospital Contribution Fund of Australia [1982] HCA 13; 150 CLR 49 at 61, notwithstanding the reference to that case made by counsel for the appellants in oral submissions. The question in that case was whether, as the High Court had previously held, it was correct to say that "court" in s 77(iii) of the Constitution meant the judges and judicial officers who were members of the court but did not include the organisation and officers through which its powers and jurisdiction were exercised. The High Court held that this narrow interpretation was not to be preferred and that a master, although not a member of the court, was encompassed by the words "any court of a State" in s 77(iii) (whereby in respect of any of the matters in ss 75 and 76 the Parliament may make laws investing any court of a State with federal jurisdiction). The circumstances in that case were therefore very different to the issues in this appeal which concerns the powers of a federal court created by the Parliament under Ch III. At 61, Mason J said that the earlier and narrower approach took insufficient account of the States' legislative competence to alter the structure and organisation of State courts. His Honour also said, being the passage relied on by the appellants: Although the Commonwealth Parliament has no power to alter the structure or organization of State courts, its freedom of action is completely preserved. It has the choice of investing State courts with federal jurisdiction or of establishing appropriate federal courts. Moreover, it may condition the investment of federal jurisdiction on the existence of a suitably structured State court - see, for example, s. 39(2) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), as amended. We can derive no present assistance from that statement although, of course, we accept that there are limitations on the nature of the power which may be conferred on a Ch III court. 101 We would reject the submission, if made in the Odzics' case, that merely because the State Tribunal formerly exercised powers in relation to Commonwealth tenancy disputes involving land in New South Wales this demonstrated, or assisted in demonstrating, that non-judicial power has been conferred on the FCCA. As a matter of history, landlord and tenant disputes were heard and determined by the ordinary courts for many decades. Further, a State Tribunal may exercise State judicial power, even if it is not a court. In Precision Data Holdings Ltd v Wills [1991] HCA 58; 173 CLR 167 (Precision Data) the High Court said, at 189: … although the finding of facts and the making of value judgments, even the formation of an opinion as to the legal rights and obligations of parties, are common ingredients in the exercise of judicial power, they may also be elements in the exercise of administrative and legislative power. Again, functions which are ordinary ingredients in the exercise of administrative or legislative power can, in some circumstances, be elements in the exercise of what is truly judicial power. It follows that functions may be classified as either judicial or administrative according to the way in which they are to be exercised. So, if the ultimate decision may be determined not merely by the application of legal principles to ascertained facts but by considerations of policy also, then the determination does not proceed from an exercise of judicial power. That is not to suggest that considerations of policy do not play a role, sometimes a decisive role, in the shaping of legal principles. (Footnotes omitted.) In Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10; 183 CLR 245 (Brandy) at 267 Deane, Dawson, Gaudron and McHugh JJ said, with reference to Precision Data, that there were functions which, when performed by a court, constitute the exercise of judicial power but, when performed by some other body, do not. 102 Further, if the point arises in the Odzics' appeal, we would also reject the contention more clearly advanced in the 20 years and over appeals that the primary judge erred in Rigney at [71] in relying on the consideration that the orders he was to make were "immediately enforceable by the Court". To give the context for his Honour's statement, we reproduce the following paragraphs from that judgment at [69]-[71]: The Court is required to apply the Tenancies Act to the facts and circumstances shown on the evidence before it. Thus, in this case, there will need to be a factual determination of, amongst other things, whether or not the respondents have been in continual possession of the premises for 20 years. This in turn will require an evaluation of the nature of the respondents' occupation and whether that amounts to possession within the meaning of the Tenancies Act. Also in issue will be whether there is a residential tenancy agreement in respect of those premises, whether that agreement was for a fixed term, and whether that fixed term (if any) has expired. In short, the Court is required to conduct an enquiry concerning the law as it is on the facts as they are: see Tasmanian Breweries at 374 per Kitto J. Once that inquiry has been conducted, the Court must then determine whether to make a termination order. Such a termination order requires there to be an order for possession at the same time to take effect as the Court considers appropriate. While the respondents are correct to say that this second inquiry is a very broad and arguably a discretionary one, that is not, in light of the authorities discussed above, decisive of the issue of whether the power is non-judicial. First, any discretion, or more accurately, determination of appropriateness, must be bound by the object, scope and purpose of the Tenancies Act. This is a familiar, if not daily, part of any Court's work. Secondly, it is to be expected, as with any broad power with which a Court is invested, that guiding principles will emerge so that the power is not simply one that arises on the basis of some idiosyncratic notions of individual judges. Thirdly, the determination by the Court will set the rights and obligations of each of the parties to the dispute which must then be observed by the parties. Fourthly, and in my view, critically, those rights and obligations are immediately enforceable by the Court. 103 In our opinion, the primary judge was here referring to the distinction described in Brandy as to whether the body had the capacity to give a decision enforceable by execution or whether, as in that case, a determination by the Commission was not binding or conclusive between any of the parties to it but the Commission was required to lodge a determination in a registry of the Federal Court and upon registration the determination was to have effect as if it were an order made by the Court. As Mason CJ, Brennan and Toohey JJ said in Brandy at 257, the fact that the Commission could not enforce its own determinations was a strong factor weighing against the characterisation of its powers as judicial. In our opinion, it is not significant, in this context, that s 120 of the 2010 RTA provides that a person must not enter residential premises for the purposes of taking possession of those premises unless the person is acting in accordance with a warrant arising out of an order for possession of the State Tribunal or a writ or warrant arising out of a judgment or order of a court. On the assumption that a warrant referable to s 120 of the 2010 RTA is necessary where the order for possession is made by the FCCA, it remains the case that the FCCA can enforce its own determinations. We accept that the FCCA's orders had the immediate effect of terminating the contractual relationship and, in the event of non-compliance, a warrant may be obtained on the authority of the order for possession: s 121(1). By force of the FCCA's orders, there was a binding determination of the rights of the parties which was, as the primary judge described it, immediately enforceable. 104 As we have already stated, when exercising power under s 85 of the 2010 RTA and s 10AA of the FCCA Act, the FCCA has no discretion with respect to the making of a termination order comparable to that arising under s 94(4). A question of the appropriate exercise of discretion will arise, however, if the FCCA makes a termination order in respect of residential premises, since the FCCA may make such orders as it considers appropriate in relation to the day vacant possession of the premises is to be given to the landlord. As we have said, the exercise of this discretion does not involve any conferral of non-judicial power. 105 Further reference may be made in this regard to Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia [1998] HCA 30; 195 CLR 1, where the High Court noted that the Federal Court had jurisdiction with respect to a matter which arose under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) in relation to which an application for orders under s 298U may be made to it. The opening words of s 298U were as follows: In respect of conduct in contravention of this Part, the Court may, if the Court considers it appropriate in all the circumstances of the case, make one or more of the following orders: … The orders there referred to included, in paragraph (e), "injunctions (including interim injunctions), and any other orders, that the Court thinks necessary to stop the conduct or remedy its effects". 106 The High Court also referred to s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), which provided that the Court has power to make "orders of such kinds, including interlocutory orders … as the Court thinks appropriate". In relation to interlocutory relief, Brennan CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ said at 32-33: The powers of the Federal Court under s 23 of its Act are powers "to make orders of such kinds, including interlocutory orders, as it 'thinks appropriate'", as Deane J noted in Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd [[1987] HCA 23; (1987) 162 CLR 612 at 622]. He added: "Wide though that power is, it is subject to both jurisdictional and other limits. It exists only 'in relation to matters' in respect of which jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Federal Court. Even in relation to such matters, the power is restricted to the making of the 'kinds' of order, whether final or interlocutory, which are capable of properly being seen as 'appropriate' to be made by the Federal Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction." One limitation on the powers of the Federal Court to grant interlocutory injunctions is that those powers must be exercised for the purpose for which they are conferred. … The moulding of an interlocutory injunction must depend upon the circumstances of each case. (Footnote omitted.) 107 We would therefore read the word "appropriate", in relation to the day vacant possession is to be given, as did their Honours, as excluding purely subjective notions of what is appropriate and also as excluding the application of extra-legal standards in order to determine the case. 108 We would reject any submission that the findings made by the primary judge as to the competing need of the lessees' and lessor's interests and what was "appropriate" was a determination which was clearly not of a legal character. 109 It follows, in our opinion, that the submission, if made in the Odzics' case, that an exercise of power under s 85 of the 2010 RTA and s 10AA of the FCCA Act involves an exercise of non-judicial power by a federal court should be rejected.

Whether no "matter" before the FCCA 110 The Odzics apparently submitted that, at the date the application was filed in the FCCA, no justiciable "matter" had arisen. This submission proceeded as follows. There was no controversy at all at the time of the filing of the application. They were entitled as of right to remain in possession with full tenure up until the date of the FCCA's decision. Thereafter a new relationship between the parties was created. 111 As perhaps foreshadowed by the references to discretion in this aspect of the written submissions, it was not clear in oral submissions whether this submission was maintained in respect of the tenants who had been in continual possession of the premises for less than 20 years, like the Odzics, as well as those tenants who had been in possession for a period of 20 years or more. We consider this issue on the assumption that it was raised in the Odzics' case, to the extent applicable. 112 The respondent submitted that the conferral of jurisdiction in s 10AA(1) of the FCCA Act was formulated in entirely orthodox terms. That is, the Commonwealth was the owner of residential premises the subject of the residential tenancy agreement it sought to terminate in the FCCA. The Commonwealth sought to exercise its entitlement under the 2010 RTA to apply to the FCCA to terminate its contractual arrangements with the appellants in circumstances where they remained in possession with no prospect of them abandoning the premises or otherwise vacating it by consent. The appellants' response did not contend that there was no dispute between the parties. There was no evidentiary contest that the dispute arose from the fact that the Commonwealth wrote to the appellants stating that it wished to have vacant possession by June 2015. The proceedings before the Court involved the existence of a controversy as to whether the residential tenancy agreement had to be terminated and the corresponding liability of the appellants to vacate the premises upon termination. As the High Court stated in Precision Data at 191, "[t]he Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate with respect to the rights and obligations by vesting jurisdiction in courts to make orders creating those rights or imposing those liabilities". 113 In their written reply, the appellants did not make specific reference to this point. 114 We turn to consider these submissions. 115 In our opinion, the controversy or "matter" is sufficiently identified in the application to the FCCA filed on 30 June 2015. That is, as between the Commonwealth as applicant lessor and the appellants as tenants of the Commonwealth of the premises, the Commonwealth had notified the tenants that it required possession of the premises by a certain date and the tenants had not yet communicated to the Commonwealth their agreement to vacate the premises on or before that date. The Commonwealth, as lessor, sought an order under s 85(3) of the 2010 RTA that the residential tenancy agreement between it and the appellants, in relation to the premises, was terminated and an order that the appellants give vacant possession of the premises forthwith. In short, in our opinion, the application by the Commonwealth as landlord for a termination order for a residential tenancy agreement in circumstances where the tenants had not agreed to give possession of the premises to the Commonwealth suffices to constitute a controversy or "matter" and this was confirmed by the appellants filing a response in the FCCA in opposition to the Commonwealth's application. 116 There is also an additional factor in this case as the appellants have not been in continual possession of the premises for a period of 20 years or more. Where a tenant has been in continual possession of the premises for a period of 20 years or more, the landlord may make an application under s 94 without giving the tenant a termination notice (s 94(2)). Where, as in the appellants' case, a tenant has not been in continual possession of the premises for so long, a termination notice is required by ss 81 and 83. A termination order will be made under s 85(3) only where the FCCA is satisfied that a termination notice was given in accordance with s 85 and the tenant has not vacated the premises as required by the notice. In those circumstances, unless the tenant gives vacant possession and so terminates the residential tenancy agreement (s 81(2)), an application to the FCCA by a landlord for a termination order must be made after the termination date specified in the relevant termination notice (s 83(2)). In our opinion, that procedure makes untenable the argument that there is no "matter" where the tenant has not been in continual possession for a period of 20 years or more and has not vacated the premises as required by the notice.

Whether no legislative power 117 The appellants submitted that there was no head of legislative power in s 51 of the Constitution or elsewhere to make laws regarding land tenure matters with respect to Commonwealth tenancies. The appellants submitted the laws were not an incident of the power to define the jurisdiction of the FCCA under s 77(i) of the Constitution. Powers under s 51(xxxix) arose in the execution of legislative, executive or judicial powers, but not in substitution for such exercise, or as a means of conferring legislative power on the Parliament by the back door. Read properly, the appellants submitted, the "main purpose" of the law comprising Sch 2 to the Federal Courts Legislation Amendment Act, the Instrument and the 2010 RTA properly characterised did not "define the jurisdiction of a federal court but provided for and created a new federal substantive law with respect to residential tenancies to which the Commonwealth was a party by recognising and creating rights with respect to a statutory lease with a code of attendant mutual rights including as to termination and recovery and enforcement". The appellants again submitted it was an attempt to get round the decision of the High Court in Henderson. 118 The respondent submitted that the Commonwealth entered into the residential tenancy agreement with the appellants in respect of land which it had acquired in order to reserve it for an airport. That acquisition was supported by s 51(i) of the Constitution. So also was the Commonwealth's entry into the tenancy agreement with the appellants. The respondent submitted that the application of the 2010 RTA as surrogate Commonwealth law, and in particular its modification pursuant to s 8(2) of the Instrument, was supported by at least s 51(i): the power to acquire the land and to enter into a lease in respect of that land extended to the regulation of the circumstances in which such arrangements may be brought to an end (so as to give effect to the purpose of the acquisition). Alternatively, s 8(2) might find support in s 52(i) of the Constitution as the appellants' premises was situated on land which was a Commonwealth place. 119 The respondent submitted the substantive rights and liabilities of the parties were conferred pursuant to s 7 of the Instrument and also modified, to an extent, by s 8. That provision picked up the New South Wales legislation, the 2010 RTA, in a manner similar to s 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The respondent referred to Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 1; 204 CLR 559 at 587 and submitted that the primary judge was correct to apply the reasoning in that case by analogy to the legislation at issue in the appeal. The respondent submitted that that power derived at least in part from s 78 of the Constitution but more generally the Commonwealth may make laws such as s 8(2) of the Instrument based on the power or powers that supported the action taken by the Commonwealth that is the subject of the proceeding. The respondent referred, by analogy, to R v Hughes [2000] HCA 22; 202 CLR 535 at 555-556 [40]. 120 The respondent submitted that s 10AA of the FCCA Act constituted an exercise of the power in s 77(i) of the Constitution to make laws defining the jurisdiction of a federal court with respect to any of the matters in ss 75 and 76 which included, in s 75(iii), matters "in which the Commonwealth or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth is a party". On the definition of "Commonwealth tenancy dispute" in the FCCA Act the Commonwealth was a party to any such dispute. 121 We turn to consider these submissions as far as they are relevant to an exercise of power under s 85 of the 2010 RTA and s 10AA of the FCCA Act. 122 In our opinion, the source of legislative power to make laws regarding land tenure matters with respect to Commonwealth tenancies is plain. In the present case it is s 51(i) of the Constitution, that is, the same power as enabled the Parliament to make a law for the acquisition of the real property, the subject of the tenancy, in order to reserve the land for an airport, as was reflected in the residential tenancy agreement. Before the making of the amendments to the FCCA Act and the Instrument, it may be taken that the 2010 RTA applied to the tenancies. On the making of that Commonwealth legislation, including the Instrument, provision was made for the law to be applied in determining a Commonwealth tenancy dispute. 123 Section 109 of the Constitution then applied so that the law of the Commonwealth prevailed and the law of the State was invalid to the extent of any inconsistency. At the same time the Commonwealth legislation, by s 10AA(1) of the FCCA Act, defined the jurisdiction of the FCCA (s 77(i) of the Constitution) with respect to matters in which the Commonwealth was a party (s 75(iii)) and arising under any laws made by the Parliament (s 76(ii)). 124 We reject the appellants' submission that the legislation "was an attempt to get round the decision of the High Court in Henderson". In that case, it was held that the Commonwealth legislation, the Defence Housing Authority Act 1987 (Cth), did not create an inconsistency between that Act and the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (NSW) to attract the operation of s 109 of the Constitution. In the present case the Commonwealth legislation, including the Instrument, expressly applies the law of New South Wales, subject to specified modifications.

Whether the Instrument was invalid 125 The appellants submitted that the Instrument was invalid as it was ultra vires s 10AA(3) of the FCAA Act. This submission proceeded on three bases. First, the appellants submitted the power conferred by s 10AA(3) did not include the power to adopt by Instrument the 2010 RTA together with the associated powers of the State Tribunal as part of Commonwealth law. The appellants submitted that, read in context, s 10AA(3) was not the conferral of a general law-making power with respect to the rights of parties to a lease entered into by the Commonwealth but was a power only to define the Court's jurisdiction with respect to a Commonwealth tenancy dispute, as defined in s 4. The appellants submitted there must be a dispute in which the Commonwealth was a party and a dispute must be about the termination of a lease, or the possession or use of land. It was submitted that s 10AA(3) authorised provision to be made for a matter involving a dispute in which the Commonwealth was a party. The appellants submitted that the Parliament's law-making power "for and in relation to … a Commonwealth tenancy dispute" was not a broad law-making power. The appellants referred, amongst other authorities, to Shanahan v Scott [1957] HCA 4; 96 CLR 245 at 250. 126 The appellants submitted that the reference to "the applicable law" in s 10AA(3), in its natural and ordinary meaning, referred "to an existing Commonwealth law not the power to make a whole new law by reference to that of another jurisdiction, in this case the whole of the law of New South Wales being a code on residential tenancies law, with the result that Parliament's law-making power was substituted for that of the Minister and the restrictions upon law-making power with respect to that subject matter [were] circumvented". The appellants also submitted that the rule-making power did not extend to a regulation which itself imported the whole of a statute that conferred executive power to decide when and on what terms the use of land may end. The decision-making power introduced and conferred on the FCCA by the Instrument was executive power. The power to focus on events and the decisive facts at the date of the decision of the FCCA and not the date of the commencement of the action was another factor indicating that the power being exercised by the FCCA was executive. Accordingly, the Instrument impermissibly widened the purposes of the FCCA Act past the definition of the Court's powers to the adoption of a wide variety of new rights and obligations and was ultra vires. 127 Secondly, the appellants submitted s 10AA(3) did not authorise a retrospective law. In this case the termination notice was served on 26 November 2014, which was prior to the commencement of the Instrument in March 2015. The statutory scheme was a code and such a law could not operate retrospectively except by express and necessary statutory fiat. The Legislation Act also restricted the operation of retrospective legislation. The appellants submitted there had been a failure to have regard to the disadvantage to tenants from the importation of the new law as Commonwealth law. The lease provided that the State Tribunal was to be the arbiter of disputes, suggesting that if the lessor sought to take advantage of its special status as a lawmaker it should have entered into fresh leases in different terms. 128 Thirdly, the appellants submitted that s 10AA(3) was invalid because the 2010 RTA had authorised the acquisition of property other than on just terms. This, the appellants submitted, was the logical conclusion of their argument based on s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution. 129 The respondent submitted that the appellants' submission misunderstood the terms of s 10AA(3) of the FCCA Act and the purpose and effect of the Instrument. As the primary judge observed at [90] of the reasons for judgment in Rigney, the Instrument applied in respect of Commonwealth tenancy disputes of a particular class, consistently with s 10AA(3), and it did no more than pick up existing law and apply it, with some modification, to the resolution of such disputes. The respondent submitted the primary judge correctly dismissed this argument at [86]-[88] of the reasons for judgment in Rigney. 130 As to the retrospectivity argument, the respondent submitted it rested on the fact that statutory notices were served on the tenants before the commencement of the Instrument. The respondent submitted that, as the primary judge held at [93] in Rigney, such an event could not be determinative of the character of the Instrument as retrospective. In order to fall within the terms of s 12 of the Legislation Act, the Instrument would have had to take effect before it was registered and it did not do so. 131 In reply, the appellants referred to McEldowney v Forde [1971] AC 632 at 658. The appellants submitted that the Instrument did not conform with the description of law-making power provided for in s 10AA(3): the limitation to a "matter" did not authorise the extensive enactment of tenancy legislation purportedly effected by the power. The appellants also submitted the FCCA Act did not confer retrospective power to make the laws, nor did they comply with the requirements of s 12 of the Legislation Act. The appellants also submitted the respondent's submissions did not address the concern that the Instrument paid no attention to justice in acquiring property of the appellants, which itself destroyed any statutory authority in the Minister to make the delegated legislation. 132 We turn to consider those submissions. 133 The starting point must be the terms on which the power to make a legislative instrument is conferred. Section 10AA of the FCCA Act has two relevant subsections, although each operates by reference to the defined term "Commonwealth tenancy dispute". Relevantly, the tenancy must involve a lease and a dispute about the termination of the lease or the possession, occupation or use of the land. Further, the dispute must be one in which the Commonwealth is a party. Section 10AA(1) deals with the jurisdiction of the FCCA to hear and determine a Commonwealth tenancy dispute between the parties to a lease in which the Commonwealth is the lessor and a person other than the Commonwealth is the lessee. It defines the jurisdiction of the FCCA, the power to do so being conferred by s 77(i) of the Constitution by reference to one of the matters mentioned in ss 75 and 76 (here being a matter in which the Commonwealth is a party within s 75(iii)). Section 10AA(3) is the regulation-making power, thus, for present purposes it is the central provision. 134 Section 10AA(3) provides that the Minister may, by legislative instrument, make provision for and in relation to all or any of certain specified matters in respect of a Commonwealth tenancy dispute. We have set out this provision above. It is also significant that, by s 5, the amendments made by the Part, which includes s 10AA, apply in relation to a lease entered into before the day Item 4 of Sch 2 to the Federal Courts Legislation Amendment Act commenced (namely, on 26 February 2015) and a Commonwealth tenancy dispute between the parties to the lease that arose before, on or after that day. 135 The Instrument was registered on 5 March 2015. Turning to the terms of the Instrument, s 5 states that the Part makes provision in relation to specified matters in respect of a Commonwealth tenancy dispute involving land in New South Wales: (a) the rights of the parties to the dispute, those rights being the subject of s 6; (b) the law to be applied in determining the dispute, that law being the subject of ss 7 and 8; (c) the powers that the FCCA may exercise under that law, those powers being the subject of s 9; and (d) the powers that may be exercised when executing an order made by the FCCA, those powers being the subject of s 10. We see no basis for a conclusion that the Instrument is ultra vires the power in s 10AA(3) of the FCCA Act. 136 We do not accept the appellants' submission that the power conferred by s 10AA(3) does not include the power to adopt by instrument the 2010 RTA. Nor do we accept the appellants' submission that s 10AA(3) is a power only to define the Court's jurisdiction with respect to a Commonwealth tenancy dispute. We also do not accept the appellants' submission that the law-making power "for and in relation to … a Commonwealth tenancy dispute" is not a law-making power since the legislation contemplated a legislative instrument-making provision for and in relation to, amongst other things, the law to be applied in determining the Commonwealth tenancy dispute. We do accept the appellants' submission that not only must there be a dispute in which the Commonwealth is a party but the dispute must be about the termination of a lease, or the possession or use of land; and, in our view, there was such a dispute in the present case. 137 We reject the appellants' submission that the reference to "the applicable law" in s 10AA(3) is to an existing Commonwealth law as that submission is directly contrary to the express words of s 10AA(3)(b): "whether a law of the Commonwealth or a law of a State…". We have already considered and rejected the submission that the legislative scheme is invalid as conferring non-judicial power on a Ch III court. 138 We do not accept the appellants' submission that the Instrument was relevantly retrospective. As we have said, s 5 of Sch 2 to the Federal Courts Legislation Amendment Act dealt expressly with the application of those amendments to existing leases and to Commonwealth tenancy disputes between the parties to such leases, whenever those disputes arose. This covered the circumstance where, as here, the termination notice was served on the tenants before the commencement of the Instrument. In our opinion, the Instrument makes provision for the rights of the parties and the applicable law for the future, although operating on disputes in relation to leases entered into before the date Pt 1 of Sch 2 commenced and before the Instrument commenced. The relevant principle is explained in Commonwealth of Australia v SCI Operations Pty Ltd [1998] HCA 20; 192 CLR 285 at 309 [57] per McHugh and Gummow JJ where their Honours made a distinction between a statute providing that as at a past date the law shall be taken to have been that which it was not, and the creation by statute of further particular rights or liabilities with respect to past matters or transactions. The Instrument is of the latter character. Further, s 12 of the Legislation Act had no relevant operation in respect of the Instrument since it did not take effect before it was registered. 139 In our opinion, there is no substance in the appellants' submission that the Federal Courts Legislation Amendment Act or the Instrument failed to have regard to any disadvantage to tenants from the importation of the new law as a Commonwealth law. Similarly, in our opinion there is no substance in the submission that because the agreement provided that the State Tribunal was to be the arbiter of disputes, this suggested that if the lessor sought to take advantage of its special status as a law-maker it should have entered into fresh lease agreements in different terms. 140 The general power under consideration in Shanahan v Scott was a power which authorised the Governor in Council to make regulations providing for all or any purposes (whether general or to meet particular cases) necessary or expedient for the administration of the Marketing of Primary Products Acts 1935-1953 (Vic), or for carrying out the objects of that Act. The majority held, at 250, that: … such a power does not enable the authority by regulations to extend the scope or general operation of the enactment but is strictly ancillary. It will authorise the provision of subsidiary means of carrying into effect what is enacted in the statute itself and will cover what is incidental to the execution of its specific provisions. But such a power will not support attempts to widen the purposes of the Act, to add new and different means of carrying them out or to depart from or vary the plan which the legislature has adopted to attain its ends. 141 In our opinion, the High Court in Shanahan v Scott was not dealing with a regulation-making power in the form of s 10AA(3) of the FCCA Act. In any event, we see nothing in the form of the Instrument which is inconsistent with what their Honours there said. 142 As to the appellants' reliance on McEldowney v Forde, we see nothing in what Lord Diplock said there that suggests that the Instrument is ultra vires. We have of course carried out the three-fold task to which Lord Diplock referred at 658E-G: first, to determine the meaning of the words used in the Act itself to describe the subordinate legislation which that authority is authorised to make; secondly, to determine the meaning of the subordinate legislation itself; and finally, to decide whether the subordinate legislation complies with that description.

Section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution - acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms 143 The s 51(xxxi) argument was principally that the law resumed the three-month possession right by operation of s 8(2) of the Instrument, which was itself an acquisition of an interest in land for the obvious benefit of the Commonwealth, hence satisfying the tests recently restated in JT International SA v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] HCA 43; 250 CLR 1. This argument could not, however, aid the present appellants because s 94(4) of the 2010 RTA, which under State law gave the security of at least 90 days between the making of a termination order and any order for vacant possession, did not apply where a tenant under a residential tenancy agreement had been in possession of the premises for less than 20 years. The s 51(xxxi) argument was incapable of applying in the appellants' case and it must fail.

Recusal on the ground of (apprehended) institutional bias 144 The appellants submitted that the question of recusal was limited to one issue, namely apprehended institutional bias founded upon a close connection between the lessor/Commonwealth and the FCCA. This, the appellants submitted, was evidenced by consultation in the making of the Instrument under s 10AA prior to March 2015, which Instrument conferred jurisdiction on the FCCA under s 10AA, and the imposition by the Commonwealth of public pressure on the Court to impose a new expense regime involving increased fees and loss of judges. Actual bias was not alleged; what was alleged was that an institutional appearance of bias had been allowed to appear by reason of the consultation by the lessor with the very court deciding the matters about the basis on which that should happen. The appellants referred to Antoun v R [2006] HCA 2; 224 ALR 51 at [83] per Callinan J and to Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; 205 CLR 337 (Ebner). The appellants submitted that judges who knew of this governmental consultation with the FCCA must be presumed to support the new law or at least have a view about its utility and to not object to the conferral of jurisdiction on the court. Those judges, so the appellants submitted, would presumably adopt the approach when the law was challenged as to its validity before him or her with the apparent bias of approbation not rejection. In this regard, the appellants submitted, the case could be distinguished from the allegation of apparent institutional bias in Re Colina; Ex parte Torney [1999] HCA 57; 200 CLR 386 especially at [139]-[142] per Callinan J. Similarly, the appellants submitted, the public issue of filing fee increases and loss of judges in the manner raised by Forge v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2006] HCA 44; 228 CLR 45 was a further basis for a finding that the Commonwealth's public intervention in the Court's affairs and governance directing its affairs gave the appearance of the possibility that the FCCA had been compromised. 145 The respondent rejected the contention that the primary judge ought to have recused himself on the ground of "institutional" bias arising from the claimed "close connection between the lessor/Commonwealth and the Court" based on the claimed: (a) close consultation between the Commonwealth and the FCCA in the period leading up to the making of the Instrument in March 2015; and (b) the alleged imposition by the Commonwealth of "public pressure on the Court to impose a new expense regime involving increased fees and loss of Judges". 146 The respondent drew attention to the limited evidence relating to these two matters. As to the first, the Commonwealth Attorney-General had issued a statement which mentioned that the Instrument had been developed in consultation with the FCCA and relevant Commonwealth Departments. As to the second matter, the only evidence was a newspaper article which stated that the FCCA risked losing registries and at least six judges if people did not continue to pay more money to divorce their partners. 147 The respondent contended that these matters did not satisfy the relevant test for apprehended bias as recently summarised by the Court in ALA15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 30 at [35]-[36]. The respondent adopted the analysis of the primary judge and also cited the observations in Waterhouse v Independent Commission Against Corruption [2015] NSWCA 300 at [19]. 148 The respondent submitted that the judgment in Ebner emphasised the requirement for a "logical connection" between the matters complained of and the perceived risk to adjudication to be identified. 149 In their reply, the appellants said that the issue of institutional integrity was one of increasing importance in the authorities and in this case that integrity had been compromised by conduct in ways that had not been explained by the respondent, except by a blanket rejection. 150 We turn to consider these submissions. 151 As a preliminary matter, no formal application for recusal was made to the primary judge in the first instance proceeding. Next, there is no foundation whatever in the evidence for this claim on either of the bases on which it was put, or on those bases considered together. Consultation with the FCCA in relation to the making of the Instrument under s 10AA prior to March 2015 was entirely unexceptionable and the reasonable bystander would know this. Neither is there anything to suggest that the primary judge was consulted or that he knew of the consultation. As to the alleged imposition by the Commonwealth of public pressure on the Court to impose a new expense regime involving increased fees and loss of judges, this also fails. There is no rational connection between any such alleged pressure and the application before the FCCA. There is nothing to suggest that the FCCA itself imposed increased fees. There is nothing relevant in Antoun v R [2006] HCA 2; 224 ALR 51 at [83] per Callinan J to which the appellants referred. Neither is there anything relevant in Re Colina; Ex parte Torney [1999] HCA 57; 200 CLR 386 especially at [139]-[142] per Callinan J, to which the appellants also referred. We reject the claim that the Commonwealth's alleged public intervention in the Court's affairs and governance directing its affairs gave the appearance of the possibility that the FCCA had been compromised.

The evidence of Mr Robertson 152 As we have noted, the revised written submissions on common issues (which were adopted by the appellants) also included a number of paragraphs referring to the evidence of Mr Peter Robertson, his evidence being common to the several appeals. In the appellants' case, the primary judge treated Mr Robertson's evidence as relevant to his consideration of the orders in relation to the day vacant possession was to be given. This aspect of his Honour's decision was not contested. Mr Robertson's evidence was not relevant to any other issue in their case. As we have already observed, when exercising power under s 85 of the 2010 RTA and s 10AA of the FCCA Act, the FCCA had no discretion with respect to the making of a termination order, but it had some discretion with respect to orders in relation to the day vacant possession of the premises was to be given to the Commonwealth. 153 It was submitted that the common issue was the issue of commercial need. It was also submitted that the appellants produced substantial material to demonstrate their competing needs for the future use of the land and that the further evidence to be read on the appeal was relevant to this issue. Reference was made to the affidavit of Dr Anthony Green. It was submitted that, in not having regard to such issues and material, the primary judge erred. It was submitted that apart from the issue of the Commonwealth's need, there was also the more important question of the needs of the appellants and the adverse local social and environmental effects with respect to the loss of the land. The appellants submitted that the evidence led by them "was relevant but its content and subject matter was [not] the subject of any or sufficient regard by the Judge". The appellants provided by way of a submission many references to documents. 154 The respondent relied on the primary judge's acceptance of Mr Robertson's evidence and emphasised that the appellants' criticisms were largely undeveloped. The respondent submitted that it was open to the primary judge to conclude, as he did, that Mr Robertson had given his evidence truthfully. 155 In oral submissions, the respondent referred to that part of Mr Robertson's affidavit evidence as to the announcement on 15 April 2014 that land owned by the Commonwealth at Badgerys Creek would be the site for Western Sydney's airport and the Commonwealth had taken steps to progress the development of the proposed airport site. The respondent said that, according to Mr Robertson's affidavit, this had included a process of obtaining vacant possession of the site from the existing residential tenants of land owned by the Commonwealth. 156 There followed Mr Robertson's description of the reasons why vacant possession was required; and, so the respondent submitted, what Mr Robertson clearly identified was that there had been no decision as to any specific proposal for this airport, but a decision had been made that Badgerys Creek was to be the site of a second airport, subject to any specific decision about a particular proposal being made. The respondent submitted that the Commonwealth had commenced the necessary environmental impact studies and even that process was invasive since various engineering studies needed to be undertaken, involving drilling rigs and other machinery. The respondent submitted that Mr Robertson's evidence described in detail the process by which most of the dwellings on the site had been demolished, in order to vacate the site for its use as an airport site, and why, in particular, the process was inconsistent with continued occupancy by tenants. In order to make the site ready for use as part of the national infrastructure, the site needed to be vacant and available for that use, as the respondent and the particular Department, vested with the management of national infrastructure, were doing. 157 The respondent submitted that the primary judge considered these matters in his judgment. The respondent said that there were also commercial arrangements which would affect any final decision to proceed with any particular proposal for the site. The respondent submitted, in answer to the appellants' submission that the primary judge erred in accepting Mr Robertson's statements regarding the construction and development of the airport and not considering the long history of uncertainty and the changing position of the Commonwealth with regard to the building of the airport, that extensive documents were submitted by the respondent supporting these delays, which were considered by the primary judge, and that issue was dealt with by Mr Robertson in his affidavit evidence. 158 We turn to consider these submissions in so far as they are relevant to the present appeal. 159 In our opinion, the appellants' submissions proceed upon a misconception, not shared by the primary judge, of the basis on which the Commonwealth sought relief, including orders in relation to vacant possession. The orders were sought by the Commonwealth in respect of premises which at that time were intended to form part of an airport site to be declared for the purposes of the Airports Act 1996 (Cth). It was the preparation of that site which was the subject of Mr Robertson's evidence as to commercial need and as to why vacant possession was urgently required. In our opinion, the point is not whether the construction of the airport itself may be delayed or abandoned by a change in policy or by other considerations but whether, as things stand, the premises were urgently required for the preparation of the airport site. 160 In our opinion, whether and on what terms the second airport may be built remains in the future. As we have indicated, the primary judge considered this matter at [95] and following of the reasons for judgment in the present appeal in discussing the appellants' argument that there was no urgency and no pending commercial requirement for the orders sought by the Commonwealth. 161 After considering the other arguments advanced by the appellants in opposition to the Commonwealth, the primary judge concluded (at [112]) that they had "presented no real basis to oppose the Commonwealth's application". Having earlier addressed the correct statutory question, whether a termination notice had been given in accordance with s 85 of the 2010 RTA and the tenant had not vacated the premises as required by the notice, and being satisfied that such a notice had been given and the tenant had not vacated as required, the primary judge correctly held (at [57]) that he was obliged to make a termination order. This was the effect of s 85(3) of the 2010 RTA (stipulating that a termination order must be made if the Tribunal was "satisfied that a termination notice was given in accordance with [s 85] and the tenant has not vacated the premises as required by the notice"), s 10AA of the FCCA Act and s 8(1) of the Instrument (which required that the 2010 RTA was to be applied as if a reference to the Tribunal was a reference to the FCCA). The primary judge then addressed (from [58]) the question of what orders were appropriate in relation to the day vacant possession was to be given, as s 8(2) of the Instrument required. Having rejected the appellants' argument as to lack of urgency and commercial requirement (as well as other arguments that the primary judge treated as bearing upon this question), for reasons that included (1) the importance of the development of a further airport in Sydney for the economic and social wellbeing of New South Wales "if not, this country" (at [114]); (2) the time, effort and money already spent on the site for the future development of the airport; and (3) that the continued presence of tenants on the airport site increased the costs likely to be incurred by the Commonwealth in this development, his Honour was satisfied that the appropriate date on which Mr and Mrs Odzic were to give vacant possession of the premises was 28 December 2015, but that the order for vacant possession should be suspended until 25 January 2016. 162 As to the many documents referred to in the appellants' written submissions, a reading of those documents (assuming they were in evidence below and in so far as they are in evidence in this Court) does not cast doubt on the treatment by the primary judge of the evidence of Mr Robertson as to the commercial need for and the urgency of the timing of possession of the premises. The appellants have not advanced any argument or other matter that would indicate any relevant error in the primary judge's consideration of the documents that could possibly have been the subject of the Odzics' submissions contesting Mr Robertson's evidence. His Honour specifically addressed these documents at [98]-[100] of his reasons for judgment.

The needs of the appellants 163 In the revised submissions on common issues, there were many references to documents as to the needs of the appellants and "the adverse local social and environmental effects with respect to the loss of their land". In this context, reference was made in the revised submissions on common issues to the evidence of Mr Simon Azar. It was submitted that the evidence of Mr Azar was seriously undermined in the evidence that the appellants brought and that was not reflected in the reasons of the primary judge. 164 As discussed above, the primary judge did not refer to the evidence of Mr Azar (or Ms Leanne Uren, Ms Simone Fogarty or Mr Lopco Neskovski) in his reasons for judgment in the Odzics' case. Nor did he refer to their evidence in any other case involving a tenancy of less than 20 years. His Honour considered Mr Azar's evidence (and that of Ms Leanne Uren, Ms Fogarty and Mr Neskovski) only in cases involving tenancies of 20 years and over. 165 As Mr Azar's evidence was not adduced in the appellants' case at first instance, the submissions concerning this evidence can be put aside as having no application in the appellants' case. The submissions in the revised submissions on common issues concerning what was said to be expert evidence of Ms Leanne Uren, Ms Fogarty and Mr Neskovski can be put aside for the same reason. 166 The primary judge's reasons for judgment show (at [102]) that his Honour rejected an argument made by the Odzics at first instance that there was no suitable or available alternative similar leaseholds in the Badgerys Creek region, on the basis that there was no evidence to support the argument. We can discern no error in his Honour's reasons on this point. His Honour was unpersuaded by Mr Odzic's evidence on the issues because he did not find Mr Odzic to be a truthful witness, and in any event his evidence was "so general as to be unhelpful". His Honour had the benefit of seeing and hearing all the evidence in the case, including that given by the witnesses. He rejected (at [90]) the greater part of Mr Odzic's evidence on the basis that he was not a witness of truth, since it appeared to his Honour "that he gave whatever evidence suited his case and, when challenged on any aspect of that evidence, he changed it again to suit his case". As Mansfield and Bennett JJ (with whom Black CJ generally agreed) said in Australian Fisheries Management Authority v Su [2009] FCAFC 56; 255 ALR 454 at [38], "[i]t would only be in a clear case that the Court might disturb a finding of credit where the primary judge has taken into account a number of apparent inconsistencies in the versions of events given by a witness from time to time and has had the benefit of seeing and hearing the evidence", citing Paterson v Paterson [1953] HCA 74; 89 CLR 212 at 219-225; State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) [1999] HCA 3; 160 ALR 588 at [63]; Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118; Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon [2003] HCA 48; 200 ALR 447 at [67], and [90]-[100]; and Apand Pty Ltd v Kettle Chip Co Pty Ltd (1994) 52 FCR 474 at 496-497. Furthermore, it was clearly open to his Honour to find the evidence was so general as to be of little or no assistance. 167 In this context, the primary judge also referred (at [103]) to a folder of material that included some documents relevant to the availability of accommodation in the Greater Western Sydney region. We can discern no error in his Honour's findings concerning those documents. 168 In oral submissions, the appellants possibly submitted that the way in which the primary judge approached the question was to reason that he was not concerned with comparable properties but only with the more general question of whether some suitable alternative accommodation was reasonably available. It is not clear that the oral submissions made by the appellants' counsel at this point were intended by him to be made in the appellants' appeal or only in the 20 years and over appeals. Assuming that this submission was made in the appellants' appeal, their argument was that this meant that the primary judge did not look at the particular circumstances relating to the property, but asked a more general question which did not look at all the circumstances of the case. It was submitted that this approach did not accord with what Rolfe J had said in Swain v Residential Tenancies Tribunal of New South Wales (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Rolfe J, unreported, 22 March 1995) where his Honour referred to, as a possible "circumstance" which may have to be taken into account, the necessity for any number of reasons for the tenant to live in a particular area, and the inability of the tenant to obtain other suitable accommodation, including accommodation in an area suitable for matters such as proximity to family, facilities or employment. According to this argument, the issue of appropriateness was never really balanced from the point of view of the appellants on the evidence which they adduced before the court. 169 Rather than involving any specific attack on the fact-finding of the primary judge, this submission (if in fact it was relevant in this appeal) appears to concern the exercise by the primary judge of his discretion under s 85(3) of the 2010 RTA (as modified by s 8(2) of the Instrument), which the parties apparently accepted attracted the principles in House v The King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499 at 504-505. There, Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ said: It is not enough that the judges composing the appellate court consider that, if they had been in the position of the primary judge, they would have taken a different course. It must appear that some error has been made in exercising the discretion. If the judge acts upon a wrong principle, if he allows extraneous or irrelevant matters to guide or affect him, if he mistakes the facts, if he does not take into account some material consideration, then his determination should be reviewed and the appellate court may exercise its own discretion in substitution for his if it has the materials for doing so. It may not appear how the primary judge has reached the result embodied in his order, but, if upon the facts it is unreasonable or plainly unjust, the appellate court may infer that in some way there has been a failure properly to exercise the discretion which the law reposes in the court of first instance. In such a case, although the nature of the error may not be discoverable, the exercise of the discretion is reviewed on the ground that a substantial wrong has in fact occurred. 170 If in fact made in this appeal, this challenge to the exercise of the primary judge's discretion, in our opinion, must fail. 171 We reject the submission that the only matter, or the only real matter, which the primary judge had regard to in relation to the appellants' interest outweighing the general economic, political and social requirements of the Commonwealth, was the availability of suitable alternative accommodation. First, we do not accept that the Commonwealth's requirements are properly described as "general economic, political and social requirements". The Commonwealth wanted to recover possession of the premises to use the land for its own purposes for the preparation of the site for an airport. Secondly, in the exercise of the power under s 85(3) of the 2010 RTA (as modified by s 8(2) of the Instrument), the primary judge considered each of the matters on which the appellants relied, including the appellants' submission as to the availability of suitable or available similar accommodation in the Badgerys Creek region. 172 Having regard to the reasons for judgment of the primary judge at [93] and following, we reject the submission that the primary judge did not look at the particular circumstances relating to the property relied on by the appellants, but asked a more general question which did not look at all the circumstances of the case. 173 In our opinion, in respect of the submissions made in relation to Mr Robertson's evidence and in relation to the needs of the appellants, no appellable error has been shown in the primary judge's consideration of the evidence or in his consideration of the interests of the appellants and the interests of the respondent.

Parties' submissions specific to this appeal 174 In the written submissions specific to this appeal dated 23 March 2016, the appellants adopted what was described as "the general argument set out in the common Submissions in each matter", which we have assumed was a reference to the written submissions on common issues initially dated 23 March 2016, and revised on 6 April 2016. As will be apparent by now, the respondent did not object to the appellants relying upon the revised written submissions dated 6 April 2016. The respondent filed an outline of its written submissions on general and common issues (excluding constitutional issues) and issues specific to individual appeals dated 8 April 2016. 175 We have already discussed the submissions that were, broadly speaking, common to all, or at least to one of the two categories of the appeals (ie, the 20 years and over appeals and the under 20 years appeals). What follows concerns the submissions that are more appropriately considered by reference to the specific facts and circumstances of this appeal. 176 Specifically, the appellants' submissions of 23 March 2016 stated that they adopted "the submission that the Judge erred in holding that the premises were within the purview of the State law, and that rather he should have held that they are not residential premises, but having regard to their area and use are partly residential in one lot and otherwise are trade or business premises", and "the common issues addressed in the Paul Kenney Submissions".

Predominant use of the leased premises 177 In his submissions, Mr Paul Kenney submitted that the primary judge had erred in his case in finding that the premises were residential premises, and that the primary judge should have found, having regard to the area and use of the premises, that they were predominantly agricultural premises. 178 Although the parties' submissions with respect to the challenge to the primary judge's findings in relation to the predominant use of the premises in the appellants' case were not clear, the respondent can be taken to have made the same argument in response as it made in like appeals on this ground. 179 In relation to the predominant use of the leased premises, the respondent submitted that there was no relevant error in the primary judge's conclusion that, having regard to the area of relevant land and the evidence of its use, s 7(h) of the 2010 RTA did not apply. The section provides that the 2010 RTA does not apply, relevantly, in respect of "premises used for residential purposes, if the predominant use of the premises is for the purposes of a trade, profession, business or agriculture". The respondent defended the primary judge's approach, which viewed the issue arising under s 7(h) as a qualitative one, rather than as a mathematical exercise. The respondent also contended that the primary judge's rejection of this aspect of the tenants' case was consistent with the fact that there was a signed residential tenancy agreement which referred to there being a house on the relevant land which was occupied by the tenants.

Did the tenancy agreement apply to the residential part of the property only? 180 In Mr Paul Kenney's submissions, it was further submitted that the primary judge erred in not considering the possible interpretation of the lease as a residential tenancy agreement in relation to only the house, but not in relation to the land on which other uses were adopted. 181 The respondent argued that there was no substance in the contention that the primary judge erred by failing to determine whether or not the lease of the premises was a residential tenancy agreement within the meaning of s 13 of the 2010 RTA in circumstances where part of their land was not used for residential purposes. This was said by the respondent to be inconsistent with the definition of "residential premises" in s 3 of the 2010 RTA.

Co-occupants as necessary parties 182 In Mr Paul Kenney's submissions, adopted by the appellants, it was also argued that there was error in the primary judge's findings as to the identity of the tenants and the correct parties, because his Honour did not ask the questions that he was required to by s 3 of the 2010 RTA and in light of the evidence, referring to [5], [13(d) and (i)] and [17] in the primary judge's reasons for judgment in Mr Paul Kenney's case, which broadly corresponded to [20(d) and (j)] and [105] in his Honour's reasons for judgment in the appellants' case. 183 The respondent submitted that the appellants' submissions, in substance, contended that a co-occupant of a residential premise is a "tenant" and is properly required to be joined as a party to proceedings that a landlord brings under ss 85 or 94 of the 2010 RTA. The respondent submitted that the term "co-tenant" is defined in s 3 of the 2010 RTA as "one of two or more tenants under a residential tenancy agreement", and accordingly a person must be a tenant before they may be a co-tenant. The respondent's submissions then cited s 10 of the 2010 RTA, which provided as follows: A person who occupies residential premises that are subject to a written residential tenancy agreement, is not named as a tenant in the agreement and who occupies the premises together with a named tenant is a tenant for the purposes of this Act only if: (a) a tenant under that agreement transfers the tenancy to the person or the person is recognised as a tenant (see Part 4), or (b) the person is a sub-tenant of a tenant under a written residential tenancy agreement with that tenant. 184 Referring to s 10 of the 2010 RTA, the respondent submitted that there was no relevant evidence of any written sub-tenancy agreement. Furthermore, the respondent submitted that the 2010 RTA is concerned only with the termination of residential tenancy agreements. In the present case, the agreement was between the named appellants and the respondent. The respondent submitted that it was not incumbent upon the respondent as a landlord to bring an end to any sub-tenancy arrangement.

Termination notices for tenancies less than 20 years in duration 185 In Mr Paul Kenney's submissions, it was said that the notice of termination was invalid on the constitutional grounds (see consideration above), and also because it was "not a notice under section 85, and failed to mention the relevant ground of taking the land back, when it was served". These submissions also claimed that the primary judge erred at [7] in the reasons for judgment in Mr Paul Kenney's case, and the points ought to have been examined on their merits with respect to the proved facts, citing Dayeian v Davidson [2010] NSWCA 42; 76 NSWLR 512. In adopting these submissions in their appeal, the appellants can be taken to refer to the equivalent paragraph in the reasons for judgment in their case, which is [3]. 186 It was further submitted in Mr Paul Kenney's submissions that the case was one involving the grant of a new tenancy, and was not a case of a periodic agreement in which there was no fixed term, citing s 3 of the 2010 RTA. It was also submitted that the application and the evidence before the primary judge failed to demonstrate that a notice in the proper form under s 85 of the 2010 RTA was ever served. 187 The respondent submitted that, since s 82 of the 2010 RTA provided that a termination notice is required to set out the day on which vacant possession is to be given, the Commonwealth's inclusion of that information, where the issuing of a notice was required for tenancies of less than 20 years, could not be criticised. The respondent submitted that "the primary judge did not make any criticism of the notice in relation to the under 20 year tenancies". The respondent further submitted that the appellants made no supporting submissions in support of ground 4 of their amended notice of appeal that they were not given the notice of termination (transcript 145).

Savings provision for periodic tenancies predating the 2010 RTA 188 In Mr Paul Kenney's submissions, it was alleged that the primary judge erred in failing to find that "the holding over provisions applied" on the basis of the terms of the lease, and for holding that "the lease may be terminated lawfully by an order his Honour had power to make". It was said that, in the tenancy agreement, "the term was a fixed term by agreement". On this basis it was also said that ss 3 and 85 of the 2010 RTA did not apply; and also that s 18 of the 2010 RTA did not apply because it came into existence after the earlier lease term expired. It was said that the primary judge erred in his conclusion that the matters in s 85(3) of the 2010 RTA had been established and the agreement had to be terminated. 189 The respondent submitted that, in circumstances where the term of the original tenancy agreement had expired, it continued under s 18 of the 2010 RTA as a periodic agreement on the same terms as applied immediately before the end of the fixed term. In respect of the submission that the primary judge erred in applying s 18 of the 2010 RTA because the tenancy agreement was entered into before the 2010 RTA commenced in 2010, the respondent submitted that s 14 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (NSW) was relevantly identical to s 18 of the 2010 RTA. The respondent further submitted that "[t]he savings provision at Clause 3 of Schedule 2 of the [2010 RTA] (adopted by s 226) provides that provisions in residential tenancy agreements and rights accruing to landlords and tenants predating the Act continue in force".

Weighing of competing considerations and date of termination order 190 In Mr Paul Kenney's submissions, it was also argued that Mr Robertson's evidence should have been rejected, that the primary judge gave no adequate consideration to the particular needs of the tenants, including what would happen to the animals on the property if suitable alternative properties were not available. It followed, so the submission ran, that there was error in the primary judge's consideration and determination of the orders that were appropriate in relation to the day vacant possession was to be given. Mr Paul Kenney's submissions concluded that "[t]he exercise of discretion ... miscarried in the House v The King sense", although at this point of these submissions reference was made to the primary judge's making of the termination order under s 85, rather than the orders in relation to the day vacant possession was to be given. 191 We have already set out the respondent's response to this submission, which was also made as a common submission in the appeals. We note that the respondent emphasised that the appellants had entered into a written residential tenancy agreement, as defined by s 13 of the 2010 RTA, and that this agreement contained an acknowledgement on the part of the tenants that the land in question was intended to be used for the proposed airport. 192 The appellants, in their written submissions dated 23 March 2016, challenged the primary judge's orders on the basis that they gave them only 14 days to move, suspended for a total of 75 days (sic), when his Honour had given another tenant (Mr Nikola Lukic) 90 days in circumstances where that tenant had not been cross-examined. 193 The respondent contended that, to succeed in challenging the primary judge's exercise of discretion, the appellants needed to establish a reviewable error in the sense of House v The King. It was insufficient that the appeal court might reach a different conclusion and that, if the matter boiled down to one of different views regarding the weight to be given to relevant items, no reviewable error was established, referring to Gronow v Gronow [1979] HCA 63; 144 CLR 513 at 519 per Stephen J, at 525 per Mason and Wilson JJ and at 534 per Aickin J. As to the appellants' contention that the primary judge erred in ordering termination forthwith and vacant possession on or before 28 December 2015 (see ground 7 of the amended notice of appeal), the respondent contended that this incorrectly recorded the orders made by the primary judge. These orders included that vacant possession be given on or before 28 December 2015, but that the order for vacant possession be suspended until 25 January 2016. The respondent contended that the orders were lawfully made, having regard to the definition of "termination order" in s 80 of the 2010 RTA where it was defined to mean "an order terminating a residential tenancy agreement together with an order for possession of the residential premises". The respondent noted that, although the primary judge made an order fixing the date for vacation of the premises, in each case he suspended the order until a later date. The respondent submitted that, in relation to these orders, it was clear that his Honour balanced the circumstances of the tenants and determined an appropriate date for vacation of the premises, so discharging his statutory function.

Alleged representations and estoppel 194 Lastly, in the appellants' written submissions dated 23 March 2016, the appellants challenged the primary judge's rejection of Mr Odzic's evidence concerning the alleged representations made to him by Ms Marjorie Bellero, on the basis that Mr Odzic was not cross-examined on critical issues, and Ms Bellero was not called as a witness. In those circumstances, the appellants submitted that the primary judge should have found that the conversation did occur in the terms claimed by Mr Odzic, and that the representations were relied upon by him, giving rise to an estoppel in his favour. The appellants submitted that the primary judge should have concluded on the evidence before him that they had an interest in the land founded upon proprietary or "High Trees" estoppel relating to the respondent's "promise not to terminate except by a notice of at least 12 months [sic] duration". 195 The respondent contended that there was nothing "perverse" in the primary judge's rejection of the evidence given by Mr Odzic. The respondent submitted that the primary judge's finding that Mr Odzic was not truthful was supported by his reasons at [86]-[90], including that "Mr Odzic was claiming to have relied upon oral and implausible representations made 14 years earlier that were said to give rise to a proprietary estoppel against the tenancy agreement being terminated prior to 2020". The respondent submitted that the alleged representations were inconsistent with the terms of the tenancy agreement executed by the appellants. The respondent, referring to [89] of the primary judge's reasons, noted that "[u]nder cross-examination Mr Odzic agreed that he paid careful attention to any documents he signed … yet when confronted about the terms of the tenancy agreement not being consistent with the alleged representation, he said he did not know much about it and that he and his wife signed it at the suggestion of the real estate agent". The respondent also referred to the primary judge's observation at [90] that Mr Odzic tailored his evidence to suit his case. 196 In response to the appellants' submission that the respondent failed to call available evidence, the respondent noted that the Commonwealth called Ms Blackwood to adduce evidence of the residential tenancy agreement last executed by the appellants. The terms of that tenancy agreement contradicted the alleged representations, and the respondent submitted that no further evidence was required to be adduced by the respondent. The respondent submitted that Ms Blackwood was cross-examined at trial and it was not put to her that the appellants had the benefit of any kind of proprietary estoppel.

Predominant use of the leased premises 197 As we have seen, s 7 provided that the 2010 RTA does not apply, relevantly, to "(h) premises used for residential purposes, if the predominant use of the premises is for the purposes of a trade, profession, business or agriculture". We discern no error in the conclusion of the primary judge that the appellants had not established on the evidence that the predominant use of the premises was for the purposes of a business or agriculture. We accept the submissions on behalf of the respondent on this point. Further, as we have stated, it was open to his Honour to find that Mr Odzic was not a truthful witness. The appellants have shown no appellable error in this regard.

Did the tenancy agreement apply to the residential part of the property only? 198 Further, we reject the appellants' contention that his Honour erred by failing to determine whether or not the lease of the premises was a residential tenancy agreement within the meaning of s 13 of the 2010 RTA in circumstances where part of their land was not used for residential purposes. We accept that, as the respondent submitted, this is inconsistent with the definition of "residential premises" in s 3 of the 2010 RTA where that term is defined to mean "any premises or part of premises (including any land occupied with the premises) used or intended to be used as a residence" (emphasis added).

Co-occupants as necessary parties 199 We accept that, as the respondent submitted, the appellants' contention in relation to co-occupants was, in effect, that each co-occupant of a residential premise was a "tenant" and required to be joined as a party to proceedings brought under s 85 of the 2010 RTA. We reject that contention. A "co-tenant" is defined in s 3 of the 2010 RTA as "a tenant who is one of 2 or more tenants under a residential tenancy agreement"; and a "tenant" is relevantly defined as "the person who has the right to occupy residential premises under a residential tenancy agreement ...". By virtue of the definition of "co-tenant", a person must be a tenant before he or she may also be a co-tenant. In this case, only the appellants were named in the residential tenancy agreement as having a right to occupy the premises; and there was no indication in the evidence that some other person satisfied another limb of the definition of tenant in s 3. In order for an occupant of the premises to be a tenant for the purposes of the 2010 RTA, he or she would have to satisfy the requirements of s 10 of the 2010 RTA, which provided as follows: A person who occupies residential premises that are subject to a written residential tenancy agreement, is not named as a tenant in the agreement and who occupies the premises together with a named tenant is a tenant for the purposes of this Act only if: (a) a tenant under that agreement transfers the tenancy to the person or the person is recognised as a tenant (see Part 4), or (b) the person is a sub-tenant of a tenant under a written residential tenancy agreement with that tenant. Note. Boarders and lodgers are not covered by this Act (see section 8 (1) (c)). An occupier may be recognised as a tenant (see sections 77 and 79). 200 We were not directed to any application made to the primary judge under s 77, and it does not appear that any such application was made. There was no suggestion that s 79 was relevant. There was, as the respondent submitted, no relevant evidence of any written residential sub-tenancy agreement with the Odzics; and there was no relevant evidence that might indicate that there had been a transfer for the purposes of s 10(a). Furthermore, we would be inclined to accept that, as the respondent submitted, it was not incumbent upon it as a landlord to bring an end to any sub-tenancy arrangement. We accept that, as the respondent submitted, there was no requirement for a co-occupant of a residential premise to be joined as a party to proceedings.

Termination notices for tenancies less than 20 years in duration 201 The primary judge considered, on the merits, whether the termination notice given to the appellants amounted to a notice of termination for the purpose of the 2010 RTA; and whether the service of the notice was duly proved. Any contrary submission made by the appellants must therefore be rejected. 202 As stated earlier, the primary judge rejected the contention that a termination notice was not relevantly "given" under s 85 of the 2010 RTA because the appellants had not been validly served with such a notice. We can detect no relevant error in his Honour's consideration of this issue, which involved a careful consideration of the relevant evidence as indicated by the detailed summary of it in his Honour's reasons for judgment in this case, some of which is set out above. In any event, so far as we can discern, the appellants made no submission on appeal that challenged the primary judge's finding that a termination notice had been served on or "given" to the appellants in accordance with the 2010 RTA. 203 Rather, the appellants appeared to contest the form of the notice of termination. We can see no error in the primary judge's conclusion that the termination notice in this case met the formal requirements of the 2010 RTA. It is evident that the notice of termination satisfied the requirements of s 82 of the 2010 RTA, including a statement about the day on which the residential tenancy agreement was to be terminated and by which vacant possession was to be given. The notice of termination also satisfied s 85(2) by specifying a termination date that was no earlier than 90 days after the day on which the notice was given. In the case of a tenancy of less than 20 years, the specification of the day on which the vacant possession was to be given was required by s 82(1)(b) and, in contrast to the reasons for judgment relating to the termination of a tenancy of 20 years or more, the primary judge in the present case did not intimate that this might be misleading. We would reject any contention that it might be in the case of a tenancy of less than 20 years.

Savings provision for periodic tenancies predating the 2010 RTA 204 We accept that the fixed term of the residential tenancy agreement having expired, the agreement continued as a periodic agreement on the same terms as applied immediately before the end of the fixed term. The agreement made some provision for continuation on the expiry of the fixed term on 4 August 2009, permitting the tenants to stay in the premises under the same terms. Accordingly, when the fixed term expired, the agreement continued. As the appellants submitted, at the time the agreement was made and, indeed, when the fixed term ended, the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (NSW) applied. On the repeal of that Act, however, and the commencement of the 2010 RTA, cl 3 of Sch 2 of the 2010 RTA applied (by virtue of s 226 of the 2010 RTA). This clause made specific provision for transition and savings with respect to existing residential tenancy agreements. Clause 3 was in the following terms: Application of Act to existing residential tenancy agreements (1) The terms included in a residential tenancy agreement by this Act are included in any existing residential tenancy agreement on the repeal of the former Act. (2) This Act applies to any such agreement despite the terms of the agreement. (3) This clause is subject to this Schedule and the regulations. 205 On commencement of the 2010 RTA that Act applied to the Odzics' agreement, it being an "existing residential tenancy agreement": see cl 2 of Sch 2 of the 2010 RTA. The agreement was a periodic agreement: see s 3 of the 2010 RTA; and Moore AP, Grattan S and Griggs L, Bradbrook, MacCallum and Moore's Australian Real Property Law (6th ed, Thomson Reuters, 2016) at [14.60]. See also McGeown v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2015] NSWCA 23; 17 BPR 34,019 at [17]; Partington v Pacific Link Community Housing Ltd [2013] NSWCA 67 at [5]-[8]; and Jain v Matakaiongo (Tenancy) [2011] NSWCTTT 623 at [13]-[14]. The effect of s 18 of the 2010 RTA is that, as the primary judge said, a fixed term agreement that continues after a day on which the fixed term ends continues to apply as if the term of the agreement were replaced by a periodic agreement. In these circumstances, s 85 of the 2010 RTA governed the termination of the residential tenancy agreement in the Odzics' case.

Weighing of competing considerations and date of termination order 206 As we have already stated, s 85(3), which was applicable to the termination of a periodic agreement, required the making of a termination order where the FCCA was satisfied that the termination notice was given in accordance with that provision and the tenant had not vacated the premises as required by the notice. If the conditions stipulated by s 85 were satisfied, the FCCA was obliged to make a termination order. Section 85 did not confer a discretion. The appellants' submission that an exercise of discretion miscarried in the making of the termination order under s 85 of the 2010 RTA was misconceived. As we have already noted, where the FCCA exercised power under s 85 of the 2010 RTA and s 10AA of the FCCA Act, s 8 of the Instrument operated to confer a discretion on the FCCA "in relation to the day vacant possession of the premises is to be given to the landlord" since, by virtue of s 8(2) of the Instrument, the 2010 RTA was to be read as including a provision that, if the FCCA makes a termination order in respect of residential premises, the Court may make such orders as it considers appropriate in relation to the day vacant possession of the premises is to be given to the landlord. 207 As we have seen, the primary judge treated the appellants' challenge to the evidence of Mr Robertson, particularly as to urgency and commercial necessity, as relevant to his exercise of discretion in making orders in relation to the day vacant possession was to be given. His Honour also considered the interests of the appellants at this stage too. No party suggested that it was not open to his Honour to do so. 208 We have already considered and rejected the appellants' submissions that Mr Robertson's evidence should have been rejected, and that the primary judge gave no adequate consideration to the particular needs of the tenants. His Honour's reasons for judgment demonstrate that he considered the evidence before him, as well as the parties' submissions, and in so doing considered the parties' competing needs and interests. As indicated, we discern no appellable error of the kind referred to in House v The King. We accept that, as the respondent submitted, his Honour's orders included that vacant possession be given on or before 28 December 2015, but that the order for vacant possession be suspended until 25 January 2016; and that these orders were lawfully made, particularly having regard to the definition of "termination order" in s 80 of the 2010 RTA. We do not accept the argument put to the Court by counsel for the appellants at the hearing that the terms of the orders of the primary judge were inconsistent with Pt 6 of the 2010 RTA.

Alleged representations and estoppel 209 Finally, we discern no error in the primary judge's rejection of Mr Odzic's evidence concerning the alleged representations made to him by Ms Bellero. As we have already stated, it was clearly open to his Honour to find that Mr Odzic was not a truthful witness for the reasons given by him, including in particular those at [88]-[90]. His evidence was, moreover, directly inconsistent with the terms of the residential tenancy agreement made on 27 November 2007 and which contained cl 42 which we have set out at [4] above. We reject the submission that the primary judge should have found that the conversation did occur in the terms claimed by Mr Odzic, and that the representations were relied upon by him, giving rise to an estoppel in his favour.

Disposition of grounds in the amended notice of appeal 210 The foregoing consideration leads to the conclusions that grounds 1 to 3 (discussed at [96]-[143] above) must fail. So too must ground 5, so far as it relied on the arguments considered in those paragraphs. Grounds 4 fails for the reasons set out at [201]-[203]. Ground 5 also fails for the same reasons. Ground 7 fails as discussed in [206]-[208] above. Ground 8 fails as discussed at [204]-[205] above. Ground 9 fails for the reasons given at [151]. Ground 13 fails for the reasons set out at [159]-[173] and [208]. 211 Grounds 14 and 15 centre on the claimed long history of uncertainty and the changing position of the Commonwealth with regard to the building or not building of the airport; the claimed reasonable belief on the part of the appellants that since December 2000 they really believed that Badgerys Creek was not being considered as a site for the airport. As to the first of these matters, ground 14, in our opinion, it was open to the primary judge to accept Mr Robertson's statements as to the airport site without rehearsing the history of decision-making about whether or not the second airport at Badgerys Creek would proceed. As we have said, the basis on which the Commonwealth sought the termination order was in respect of the premises which were to form part of an airport. It was the preparation of that site which was the subject of Mr Robertson's evidence as to commercial need and as to why vacant possession was urgently required. Further, in our opinion, it was not necessary for the primary judge, in the exercise of his discretion under s 8(2) of the Instrument, to take into account the documents submitted by the appellants in relation to the history of decision-making. In any event, we note that, at [59] of his reasons for judgment, the primary judge referred to the Commonwealth undertaking in the late 1980s and 1990s a land acquisition program in the Badgerys Creek area to acquire and reserve the land needed for an airport in Western Sydney. His Honour noted that the acquisition program resulted in the acquisition by the Commonwealth of a large number of individual titles in the suburbs of Badgerys Creek, Luddenham and Greendale. 212 As to the second of these matters, ground 15, that the appellants believed that Badgerys Creek was not being considered as a site for the airport, we do not see this as having a foundation in the evidence. Objectively, the residential tenancy agreement in respect of the premises was made on 27 November 2007 with a term of one year and contained cl 42 which we have set out at [4] above. To the extent the appellants in this case advanced the submission that because the lessor did not plead that express provision for termination, it was legally irrelevant to rely upon it in evidence, we would reject that submission. As the primary judge pointed out, the application to that court was not a pleading. In the absence of probative evidence as to the appellants' thinking, this ground must fail, especially in light of cl 42 of the agreement entered into in November 2007. 213 As to ground 17, claiming an estoppel, we have considered and rejected this contention at [208]. 214 We note that, for the reasons already stated, we would not grant leave to amend the notice of appeal to add grounds 10, 12, 16 and 18.

The application to adduce further evidence on appeal 215 On this appeal the appellants sought to adduce the following further evidence: 1. Affidavit of Mr Stojan Odzic dated 13 January 2016; 2. Affidavit of Ms Sandra Uren dated 6 March 2016; 3. Further affidavit of Ms Sandra Uren dated 6 March 2016; 4. Affidavit of Dr Anthony Green dated 9 March 2016; 5. Affidavit of Mr Kingsley Liu dated 1 February 2016; 6. Affidavit of Mr Kingsley Liu dated 9 March 2016. 216 Section 27 of the Federal Court of Australia Act provides, so far as relevant, that in an appeal, the Court shall have regard to the evidence given in the proceedings from which the appeal arose, and has power in its discretion, to receive further evidence. 217 The principles to be applied were considered in August v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCAFC 85; 94 ATR 376 at [116] and [119] as follows: [116] The Court's power to receive further evidence is contained in s 27 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The authorities make it clear that in exercising the discretion the Court is not constrained by the factors relevant at common law as enunciated in Orr v Holmes and Another [1948] HCA 16; (1948) 76 CLR 632 and Council of the City of Greater Wollongong v Cowan [1955] HCA 16; (1955) 93 CLR 435. That is not to say that the common law factors are not relevant, only that they are not the only relevant factors. In many cases it would be most material to consider whether the evidence could have been called at trial and, if it could have been, the reasons it was not, and the extent to which the further evidence had the ability to affect the result.[117] The Full Court referred to Sobey v Nicol and Davies as Joint and Several Receivers and Managers of the Property of Mercorella and the Scheme and as Joint and Several Liquidators of the Scheme (2007) 245 ALR 389 at 403-404 [68]-[72], which cited what the High Court had said in CDJ v VAJ (No 1) [1998] HCA 67; 197 CLR 172 (in the context of the similarly worded s 93A(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)) and which, in Sobey, referred to decisions of the Full Court of this Court including Cottrell v Wilcox [2002] FCAFC 53 at [20]-[24]; Gao v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2003] FCAFC 84 at [23]; Freeman v National Australia Bank Ltd (2003) 2 ABC (NS) 32 at 48-50; [2003] FCAFC 200 at [68]-[74] and Ye v Crown Ltd [2004] FCAFC 8 at [157]-[161]. … [119] In addition to the above matters, it should be noted that it is well-established by the authorities that the power in s 27 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and equivalent sections in other Acts is a remedial power and that an important consideration in terms of the exercise of the power is whether the further evidence would have produced a different result had it been available at the trial or, at least, was likely to have produced a different result: CDJ v VAJ; Sharp v Rangott [2008] FCAFC 45;(2008) 167 FCR 225 at 228-229 [8] per Gray and North JJ; at 248 [92] per Besanko J. 218 In CDJ v VAJ [1998] HCA 67; 197 CLR 172, McHugh, Gummow and Callinan JJ said, at 202: … it is highly unlikely that Parliament in conferring jurisdiction on the Full Court to hear appeals intended that s 93A(2) should be construed in a way that would have the practical effect of obliterating the distinction between original and appellate jurisdiction. Nor can the availability of further evidence relevant to the issues in the appeal be treated as equivalent to a ground of appeal, proof of which prima facie entitles the appellant to a new trial. The power to admit the further evidence exists to serve the demands of justice. Ordinarily, where it is alleged that the admission of new evidence requires a new trial, justice will not be served unless the Full Court is satisfied that the further evidence would have produced a different result if it had been available at the trial. Without that condition being satisfied, it could seldom, if ever, be in the interests of justice to deprive the respondent of the benefit of the orders made by the trial judge and put that person to the expense, inconvenience and worry of a new trial. 219 In light of these principles, we turn to consider the six affidavits listed above.

Affidavit of Mr Stojan Odzic dated 13 January 2016 220 We shall assume that this affidavit was sought to be read in the appeal. It was contained in a list of the affidavits on which the appellants relied dated 12 April 2016 which the Court directed the appellants to file. 221 In our opinion, the affidavit was relevant to the interlocutory application for a stay. So far as this appeal is concerned, it referred to nothing relevant to this appeal which Mr Odzic had not previously covered in his affidavit before the primary judge or that could not have been adduced before his Honour. On the assumption we have made, we reject this affidavit.

Affidavit of Ms Sandra Uren dated 6 March 2016 222 We shall assume that this affidavit was sought to be read in the appeal. The respondent notified objections to it dated 18 March 2016. 223 This affidavit is of nine paragraphs. In it Ms Sandra Uren sought to annex a document entitled "Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan - Consultation Report" from September 2015, which stated that construction of the Northern Road Upgrade Stage 4 may start in late 2017. Ms Uren then sought to depose at paragraph 9 to various telephone conversations she had had with New South Wales departmental officers with responsibility for the upgrade and the interrelationship between the stage 4 roadworks and the possible construction of an airport at Badgerys Creek. Ms Uren sought to depose that whenever either the NSW Roads and Maritime Services or the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development sought access to her premises, she always gave access and cooperated. 224 We note that this material, if relevant, could have been tendered at the hearing before the primary judge. 225 Further, we reject paragraphs 4 and 5 as having an insufficient relevance to the matters at issue in the appeal. We are not satisfied that this further evidence would have produced a different result if it had been available at the trial. We reject paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 as hearsay. We reject paragraph 9 since evidence of Ms Uren's cooperation would have been available at the time of the hearing; could have been put to Mr Robertson in cross-examination; would not appear to be relevant to the present appeal; and we are not satisfied that this further evidence would have produced a different result if it had been available at the trial. In the result, on the assumption we have made, we reject the entirety of the affidavit including the formal paragraphs 1 and 2.

Further affidavit of Ms Sandra Uren dated 6 March 2016 226 Ms Uren swore a further affidavit dated 6 March 2016, of 10 paragraphs, which the appellants sought to rely on in their appeal. The respondent notified objections to it dated 18 March 2016. 227 In paragraph 5, Ms Uren sought to give evidence about what she said were the deficiencies in the Western Sydney Airport Draft Environmental Impact Statement released in October 2015, and sought to attach a transcript of the speech in Parliament by a Senator to establish this proposition. The first sentence of this paragraph we reject as hearsay. The second sentence we also reject as hearsay and because its tender, or reception into evidence, is contrary to s 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth). Further, we are not satisfied that this further evidence would have produced a different result if it had been available at the trial. 228 In paragraph 6, Ms Uren sought to annex part of a copy of a Peer Review dated 25 November 2015 of the Western Sydney Airport Draft Environmental Impact Statement conducted, it appears, by an entity engaged by the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils and MacArthur Regional Organisation of Councils. We accept that the document was not available at the time of the hearing before the primary judge. Nevertheless, we reject this paragraph. There is nothing to suggest that the Peer Review, or its contents, go to any issue in the appeal. It is not explained how it is said to be relevant to the evidence given by Mr Robertson as to the need for urgency. We are not satisfied that this further evidence would have produced a different result if it had been available at the trial. 229 In paragraph 7, Ms Uren sought to annex a copy of part of the Sydney Airport, Half Year Results 2015 and extracts from the Sydney Airport Financial Report dated December 2015 and a Sydney Airport Financial Report, which Ms Uren sought to say shows "the delay in issuing Sydney Airport the Notice of Intention". We reject this material. We do not consider that the material sought to be annexed bears the meaning sought to be attributed to it. We are not satisfied that this further evidence would have produced a different result if it had been available at the trial. 230 In paragraph 8, Ms Uren sought to state that, as a low-income earner, she has had great difficulty finding alternate affordable accommodation and sought to annex a report by the NSW Parliamentary Research Service dated September 2015 and entitled "Affordable rental housing: the problem and its causes." We would reject this paragraph. The first sentence was not relevant to this appeal. As to the paper sought to be annexed, it too was in a general form. It did not go to the specific position of the appellants. We are not satisfied that this further evidence would have produced a different result if it had been available at the trial. 231 In paragraph 9, Ms Uren sought to give evidence as to a factor taken into account by UNESCO, in 1999, in considering the World Heritage Listing for the Greater Blue Mountains Area. We reject this paragraph. This material, if relevant, could have been tendered before the primary judge. Secondly, Ms Uren sought to give hearsay evidence. Thirdly, the Annexures do not appear to contain the material which Ms Uren sought to give evidence about. Fourthly, we are not satisfied that this further evidence would have produced a different result if it had been available at the trial. 232 In paragraph 10, Ms Uren sought to annex a media release by a Senator. We reject that paragraph as hearsay. Further, we are not satisfied that this further evidence would have produced a different result if it had been available at the trial. 233 In summary we reject the entirety of the affidavit, including the formal parts in paragraphs 1 to 4.

Affidavit of Dr Anthony Green dated 9 March 2016 234 The respondent notified objections to this affidavit on 18 March 2016. Those objections were that the expert evidence was inappropriate for an appeal; the material was either not relevant or, if it was, it could have been adduced before the primary judge; and queried the expertise of the deponent. The appellants submitted that the draft Environmental Impact Statement -Western Sydney Airport (EIS) discussed by Mr Green was not released until 18 October 2015 and that the material was relevant to the Commonwealth's asserted need for urgency and, it was submitted, the local council's diminished support for the airport project. The appellants submitted that Dr Green's curriculum vitae should be sufficient to establish his expertise. 235 Although, at paragraph 5, Dr Green stated that he has limited his observations to facts and matters arising after or affected by events occurring after August 2015, we do not accept that this is so. For example, many paragraphs were directed to what were described as deficiencies in establishing the need to build an airport at Badgerys Creek. Dr Green purported to say: "The decisions arrived at are therefore invalid and flawed" in paragraph 9. To that extent this material would have been available to the appellants at the hearing before the primary judge and there was no evidence explaining why it was not. 236 More importantly, it is not shown that Dr Green's opinions as expressed in his affidavit, which involved a statement of opinion in paragraph 39 as to what was or was not "in the economic or societal interest of Australians" were founded in his expertise. Thus, a criterion for the admissibility of an expert report is not met. 237 Indeed, it is not at all clear that the matters that he was asked to consider, whether the EIS was severely flawed and whether these deficiencies affected the timescale for future planning in the area, fall within his expertise at all. Dr Green's curriculum vitae stated that his research covered a broad spectrum of problems that were relevant to the assessment and control of catastrophic risks, particularly fire and explosion phenomenon, and terrorism in industry and major infrastructure. Nevertheless, the material set out in his affidavit was focused on matters of economics; the choosing of an airport location; the assessment of combining an existing airport with high-speed rail as an alternative; and then turns to what is said to be ten "critical infrastructures" where the airport introduces risks. Dr Green's affidavit then concludes at paragraph 37 that "the airport should be built if it is to be built at all outside the Sydney Basin and connected by High Speed rail to Western Sydney and Central Sydney. This can include extension of Canberra Airport rather than new airport Infrastructure at Badgerys Creek." Dr Green then stated that the need for a new airport before 2040 in any event "has not been established if high-speed rail transport is included as part of Eastern Australia infrastructure development". Thus, it is not plain that, although there are references to what Dr Green described as the "draft airport plan and EIS", his conclusions were founded in the questions he was asked to address. To that extent, as we have said, the material would have been available to the appellants at the hearing before the primary judge and there was no evidence explaining why it was not then sought to be adduced. 238 Lastly, we are not satisfied that this further evidence would have produced a different result if it had been available at the trial. 239 We reject this affidavit.

Affidavit of Mr Kingsley Liu dated 1 February 2016 240 We shall assume that this affidavit was sought to be read in the appeal. It was contained in a list of the affidavits on which the appellants relied dated 12 April 2016, which the Court directed the appellants to file. 241 In our opinion, the affidavit referred to nothing relevant to this appeal and, on the assumption we have made, we reject it. It appears to go only to interlocutory questions.

Affidavit of Mr Kingsley Liu dated 9 March 2016 242 The respondent notified objections to this affidavit on 18 March 2016. 243 The affidavit was in terms formal and, so far as relevant, did no more than identify the affidavits sought to be read, stating: "The evidence to be adduced was not submitted in the Court appealed from as it was not then available, or not then relevant." We admit only those parts of this affidavit. We give that general statement little weight.

Conclusion 244 The appeal should be dismissed. Counsel for the appellants accepted that in those circumstances costs should follow the event. We will therefore order that the appellants pay the respondent's costs, as agreed or taxed. I certify that the preceding two hundred and forty-four (244) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Kenny, Robertson and Griffiths.