1. s.5(a): That a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with the making of each decision;

2. s.5(b): That procedures that were required by law to be observed in connection with the making of the decisions were not observed;

3. s.5(d): That each decision was not authorized by the enactment or power in pursuance of which it was purported to be made;

4. s.5(e): That the making of the decisions was an improper exercise of the power conferred by the enactment or power in pursuance of which each was purported to be made on the more specific grounds referred to in Grounds 8 to 17 below;

5. s.5(f): That the decisions involved an error of law, whether or not the error appears on the record of the decision;

6. s.5(h): That there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decisions;

7. s.5(j): That the decisions were otherwise contrary to law.

8. s.5(2): For the purpose of subsection 5(1)(e) ADJR, Ground 4 above, the applicant provides the following grounds:

9. s.5(2)(a): Taking an irrelevant consideration into account in the exercise of a power;

10. s.5(2)(b): Failing to take a relevant consideration into account in the exercise of a power;

11. s.5(2)(c): An exercise of a power for a purpose other than a purpose for which the power is conferred;

12. s.5(2)(d): An exercise of a discretionary power in bad faith; For the purpose of FCR 31.01(2) the following particulars are provided: prior to the decisions the applicant was charged with 12 Defence discipline matters by the Chief of Army in substance the same or apparently the same as the matters taken into account by the Respondent in dismissing the Applicant or which were considerations that comprised an ulterior motive of the Respondent with respect to making the decisions challenged herein in circumstances where each such discipline charge against the Applicant was dismissed by the Director of Military Prosecutions to the knowledge of the Respondent; the Applicant contends it was bad faith to have regard to such considerations in the said circumstances or that the Respondent proceeded upon a fixed view that the Applicant be dismissed or failed in the circumstances described herein to give genuine consideration to the exercise of his powers under Defence (Personnel) Regulations 2002 Reg. 85(1)(e) and/or DI(G) Pers 50-1;

13. s.5(2)(e): An exercise of a personal discretionary power at the direction or behest of another person;

14. s.5(2)(f): An exercise of a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits of the particular case;

15. s.5(2)(g): An exercise of a power that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power;

16. s.5(2)(h): An exercise of a power in such a way that the result of the exercise of the power is uncertain; and

17. s.5(2)(j): Any other exercise of a power in a way that constitutes abuse of the power.

18. The decisions involved or included an exercise of the executive power of the Commonwealth or of the prerogative comprising the command power which restricted or was in conflict with the implied freedom of the Applicant to communicate with respect to public affairs and political discussion and was accordingly void and of no effect.

19. The decisions involved or included an exercise of the executive power of the Commonwealth or of the prerogative comprising the command power which was in conflict with the fourth clause of section 116 of the Constitution and was accordingly void, namely that no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth in that the Respondent dismissed the Applicant because of or influenced by his strong religious views.