Isx vs AFR, page-190

We might be at cross-purposes, hope not but not sure.

I think the short answer is that they are. It's recognised in para 52 that they are obliged to perform a function under the Corps Act (i.e. apply the Rules) which they have, and once the Rules are called into play (17.3), they then have an absolute discretion as to how they are applied and what they do. That's why they've pleaded para 52(c) and (d) in the way they have, that is, 'if we don't perform the duty that we have to, we accept we'd be in breach. But we did satisfy the obligation under the Corps Act to apply the rules and in the exercise of our absolute discretion under rule 17.3 (i.e. 'may'), we suspended ISX'.

If the depth that you're looking for in the exercise of the discretion is what actually underpins the decision that was made, then that goes to the heart of the case and what evidence is to be adduced to support, first, an initial suspension, and, secondly, an ongoing one. Most people would like to know that and, as suggested, those privy to the discussions would be in the best position.

Cheers.