Where a statute uses words according to their ordinary meaning and the facts are capable of falling within or without the statutory description, the AAT's determination of which side of the line the facts fall on is a question of fact, not a question of law, and is not appealable under s 44 of the AAT Act. The majority's approach means that challenges to AAT source-of-income findings will only succeed where the facts necessarily fall within (or without) the statutory provision, or where the AAT has applied incorrect legal principles. The dissent by Jessup J, holding that the source question necessarily involved a question of law because 'relevant legal tests' must be applied, remains a minority view but may be relied upon in future cases.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 16 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 16 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.