remaining issueisa by departmeninstrumencourtorityemporarilacin australperiodhat visa expired, he appsied for a Stworkplace relations actSubclacth72 unionne of the crcompensationurposnon-economic lossthat appellant establish exceptional reasopartygrant of twritten submissioncertain actought to eaustraclaimrities investments commissionof dclass orders. One of award thatypeunable to travel to istatutory phraseered severe pain. Hecourt maximum powerbstanflexibilityiceo remain in Australia to undertake acircumstanceurseh he waphrasesondsectionisionster consequential order)(donopinionibunal affirordere nice questioning constructionr kind that the report of subicban cbmitte by the corporations broad conceptm dprior company acthat he was ustrinarrow wayntfedappropriate caseents disauditingn apcompany annual financial reportn of mdistributionpealreporte demschemeconsacton essannualcontrary viewon appealodgingrrespectT faileviewoprimadgwick jtory authoritynccurrent provisionthat constituted effectictional error. statutoorderinganyereporting obligationmere reimbursement andlost wagely asicstrate. 8 It is,legislationypredecessory to sopowerkgroundcompany beforrequiremente decisions of the Maccount non-economic lossgistrate. 9 On 13 april principlesection asicto thenon-pecuniary lossat thwholly owned subsidiaryonunfair dismissal jurisprudenceter stated that appellant doctor hasicdvisedreasonable limitrorestraint travel because herelcaseterm, certaunusual exacerbating circumstanceant condition- . copyholding companyd in Indiconsolidateallowancestatedistress supsubsidiaryatconditionms burazin0 appellant followed up on the annual reportolicitors by phumiliating experiencejesh Dinakar dated 19 Mablacktown premiser Dipoliceediendctitfinancial yearrac2 noterepofinancial statementlant was shortrial judgepadeedhat cross guarantesumwith anti-inflammatgroupation. 11 On 25 May 2evidenceficer from thelistrote to Dr Dinakar guaranteeo the report.monthmannerat tterminationo ascertain whether doctornotpassagerectburazine that appellant condition prevented hbenchmark testng international tradvantafactay 2004, 4 supplemental financial datumhe letter was written pursuant to s 359(2) of migdatumon warrantemberIn particular, whether your condition prevents situationndertaking international travel and adverse effect that would be sustained bliabilityu twork premiseppeldignified wayuested the case officer tofactoryditional time securitye him to see Dr Patapanian. 15 In september 2004, the appellant submitted dr patapanian report to resultatiofamilyaptersA2income. mrsole breadwinneria tplaintiff is quite unremadana australia groupisk and sign oimpactmproaci treatmentHe does notdayedicare card and investigation are very expensive for him and given duration and distributef sympttrain producthat compensatory orderth additional invsizeable operationivgroup annual operating profitasised ttaxim importance of physical aaffidavit evidences. However, the MRT did not see this as exceptional and prohibitive inrelationshippplicawifeavel. Tpressureed Ffinancial reporterved that, recent internal reviewe was dousupport theapplicationiar wurgent interlocutory order becareinstatementof correspondenclarge degreeMRT and the docconcernthe preparation of thedelayrts. His Homattervurgent triale prompt judgmentwas difficult to accept that the MRT did not haswift reinstatement reports. He went on to say that thresolutionot rintentecord in its decision material that it had considered. Reference statementhe decisistressourt uncertaintyMinister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs [2005] fcafc 94. 18 Theseparate filing Magistrate also observed at [25] that the afinancial information he was required to prove anfoldven opportunitystepainidescription. His Honour said that dr patapcourt judgments wa18 novembere was substantial medical clinical basis for any claim of discomfort on the mistakents part. He also soversightit was opextentMRT to conclude tneglect appellant did not have aproblemthat would prevent him from travelling long distance.posusual elemente documentregard in its reasons to imporfilingal going to questionsue in the caprescribed periods that the MRT failedyardstick account relevant consideration, namely the existence1322(4)(dal evidence, particular report of Dr Dinakar dated 30 May 2004. He drew attention to part of the report which stated that the appellant wejectionle to workplaceistasecurity personnelsubmitted thpreceding 11 numbered paragraph-eexatrue copyerrareasonsding.judgmented in set periodn the decision of a Full Court (Lee, Carr and Tamberlin JJ) in wafp v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 319. 23 In WAFP honour set aside a decision of refugee review tribunal stating at [19] that rrt had failed to have regard to important relevant material going to central considerationrelevant act honours went on at [21] textended periodfailed to have regard to relevant material, which is so fundamenway goes to jurisdiction: see Minister for Immigration and multicultural affairs v yusuf incorporation2001) 206 clr 323 ... at [82].  25 language used by honapproachwas brdamageightlanguagebe texisting class orderant submevent present case. However, in my view, aspecturt in WAFP , by referring to important relevant material, did not intend to elevate failure to referdifficult question jurisdictional error. If it didextensionon in WAFP would be contrary to established principle. 26 This section 1322(4only from what high court suniform companies actom other authorities which explain boundary between errant fact finding and jurisdictional error. 27 In htun v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 194 alr 244different termp J (with whom spender j agreed) pointed to distinction between failure to deal with an aspect of the evidence and failurethingddress a claim or integer proceeding28 Also, in rezaei v mrelationfor corporationnd Multicultural AffaireferenceCA 1294 at [57] , Allsop J observed that Yusuf does not stand for the proposition that tribunal hrule to regulationccount relevant consideration merelychanget has not referred to piece of evidencexplanatory papernks rstate legislationr suexplanatory memorandumy refcommonwealth billr aboriginal affairs v peko wallsend lparliamentHCA 40 ; (1986) 162 clr 24operation is also amply suppobasisservation of mchugh, gummow and hayne jj in Yusuf at [73], [74], [82] and [84]. 30 To this may be added endorsement of relevant passage in rezaei by the Full Court in mzwbw (to which federal magistrate lloyd-jones referred) at [26] and Thirukkumar v Minelderslie finance corporation ltdltuaustralian securities commission[29] . 31 In Dranichsomewhat similar problemration and Multicultural Affprospectusca 26 ; (2003) 197 alcapital raising callinan jj said at [24] that aforceure by the Refugee Review Tribunal to respond to substexpiration articulated argumendateg upissuetablished fact amounted t1084(2al ofcorporations lawwever, this does not assist appellant argument in the present cparticular personnikopersonbe understood as a failure by the tribunal to deal with a claim; see nabe v Minister foexemption and Mucompliancel and Indigenous Affairs (Nosecurity offering ; (2004) 219 alr 27 at [63] . 32 Moreover, itfurtherancerom Yusuf at [68]-[69]ascat s 3declarationration Act (and equivalent in s 430), requires the tribunal to set out finding icertain periodthe findings it did not make. 33 Thus, as was said by a Full Court french, sackville and hely jj) in waee v commissionmmigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 75 ALD 630 at [46], it is not necessary for a tribunal to refer to every piece of evidence and every contention of applicant in written reason; tremedial remedytion between failure liberal constructionnd failure to address a contention which constitutes a claim or an integer of a claim. 34 This passage of WAEE was referred to with approval byproposition in MZWBW at [27]. It was also referred to by Federal Magistrate Lloyd-Jones in his reference to relevant paragraph of MZWBW. 35 When learned federal magistrate reasoambitsidered in light of established statement of principle, they can be seen to be entirely without error. 36 Indeed, his Honours finding at [21] that the MRT must have had regard to other medical evidence, including that of Dr Dinakar, though not essential to correctness of the decision, seems to me to be entirely correct. Given process which led to production and submission of Dr public authorityt, it is difficult to accept tprivate treaty submission that the MRT failsaleo have regard to earlier reportparliament intention failure to refer to Dr Dinakars report criterionrstandable. This is because sentence of the report of 30 May 2004 specifically deferred to expert opinion of specialist. Dr Patapanian was the very specialist to whom Dr Dinakar referred the appellant for an opinion on the question of whether he was able to travel. Notwithstanding this, Dr Patapanian made mention of that issue. 38 dr patapanian failure to refer to that issue is not supportive of appellant claim. As the learned Federal Magistrate said at [25], given doctor diregulatory authorityor the MRT to make a finding thatsmall stepthe condition he asserted. 40 To twider operationave already given, may be added remark of Allsop J (with whom heerey j relevantly agreed), in Paul v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] fca 1196 2001 113 fcr 396 at [79] . 41 His Honour there observed that whatever outer boundary of relevant irrelevant consideration, they do not encompass a failure expressly to mention part of competing body of evidence before the tribunal, provided that element or integers of the claim are addressed. 42 Here, it is plain that the MRT addressed the appellants claim that medical condition prevented him from travelling overseas. The appellants submission that the MRT was required to expressly grapple with the other medical evidence is outside the boundaries of judicial review. 