Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] WASC 41">criminal law and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] WASC 41">return of review orders in respect of decision of magistrate dismissing a charge as bad for duplicity contrary to criminal procedure act 2004 (wa) s 23(1) and sch 1 cl 2(4)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] WASC 41">whether charge was bad for duplicity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] WASC 41">approach to that question</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] WASC 41">whether australian crime commission act 2004 (cth) s 33(1) created two offences, not one</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] AATA 814">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] AATA 814">duties and functions of an administrator and liquidator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] AATA 814">whether the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] AATA 814">whether applicant failed to carry out or perform adequately and properly the duties of a liquidator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] AATA 814">whether applicant failed to carry out or perform adequately and properly the duties and functions required by an australian law to be carried out by a registered liquidator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] AATA 814">applicant found to have failed in some respects</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] AATA 814">decision under review is affirmed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] HCA 31">shi v migration agents registration authority  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] HCA 31">application for review by administrative appeals tribunal ("tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] HCA 31">decision by migration agents registration authority ("the authority") to cancel registration of migration agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] HCA 31">tribunal's task to determine what was the correct or preferable decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] HCA 31">whether tribunal should determine what was the correct or preferable decision when the authority made its decision, or whether tribunal should determine the correct or preferable decision as at the time of its own decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2008] HCA 31">necessity for close attention to the applicable legislative provisions.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2008] HCA 31">migration agents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2008] HCA 31">registration and cautioning of migration agents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2008] HCA 31">power of the authority to set out one or more conditions for the lifting of a caution given to registered migration agents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2008] HCA 31">tribunal (exercising for itself the powers and discretions conferred on the authority) cautioned a migration agent and imposed conditions for the lifting of that caution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2008] HCA 31">conditions imposed restricted migration agent from providing assistance with protection visas and from working without supervision of another registered migration agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2008] HCA 31">whether conditions could be imposed that seek to qualify a registered migration agent's right to use that registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2008] HCA 31">whether conditions imposed were inconsistent with the legislative scheme for registration of migration agents.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2008] HCA 31">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2008] HCA 31">powers of tribunal to substitute its decision for a decision of an administrator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2008] HCA 31">proper approach to ambit and application of power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2008] HCA 31">necessity for close attention to the applicable legislative provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[2008] HCA 31">necessity for attention to purpose and history of legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[2008] HCA 31">whether any general presumption as to determination of the rights of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">cited from="[2008] HCA 31">relevance of the constitution, functions and general powers of tribunal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 197">workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 197">representation made by union officer about employees' obligation to join union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 197">finding by primary judge that union official did not understand what he said was wrong</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 197">whether contravention of s 298sc requires that representation was intentionally false or misleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 197">whether representation that is false or misleading in fact contravenes s 298sc</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2007] AATA 1914">... tribunal's discretionary powers to regulate procedure and determine the scope of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2007] AATA 1914">tribunal's role is to determine the correct and preferable decision on the material before it not on the basis of the material which was before the original decision-maker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2007] AATA 1914">applicant's interlocutory application is dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2007] AATA 1383">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2007] AATA 1383">psychotic illness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2007] AATA 1383">not a fit and proper person to remain registered as a liquidator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2007] AATA 1383">ability to manage affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2007] AATA 1383">ability to participate effectively in the conduct of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2007] AATA 1383">whether illness exacerbated or prolonged by proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2007] AATA 1383">relevance of illness to past conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">albarran v members of the companies auditors and liquidators disciplinary board  gould v magarey  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">separation of powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">on the application of the australian securities and investments commission, the companies auditors and liquidators disciplinary board ("the board") suspended the registration of the appellants as liquidators pursuant to s 1292 of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">whether s 1292 of the corporations act 2001 (cth) invalidly confers the judicial power of the commonwealth upon the board.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">meaning of judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">whether disciplinary proceedings involve the exercise of judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">whether the determination of wrongdoing or impropriety involves the exercise of judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">whether the capacity to affect the appellants' "status" as registered liquidators involves the exercise of judicial power.  insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">liquidators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">suspension of registration as liquidator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">role and function of the board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">whether the functions performed by the board involved the ascertainment or enforcement of an "existing right or liability"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">whether the function performed by the board involved the imposition of punishment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">relevance of the composition and membership of the board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">relevance of the exercise of evaluative or discretionary power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">relevance of historical considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">relevance of chameleon principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.19">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">whether the board exercised judicial power.  insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.20">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">liquidators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.21">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">suspension of registration as liquidator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.22">cited from="[2007] HCA 23">meaning of "adequately and properly" and "fit and proper" in s 1292(2) of the corporations act 2001 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2007] AATA 1540">the reason why the applicant was not able to provide any opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2007] AATA 1540">an opinion that in my view is central to any administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2007] AATA 1540">as to whether or not there had been a failure to maintain books and records in accordance with section 286 so as to provide a rebuttal presumption of insolvency or whether or not there had been any offences, voidable transactions and insolvent trading undertaken, even on a preliminary basis, was because he simply chose not to inspect the company's books and records.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 555">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 555">application for interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 555">companies auditors and liquidators disciplinary board suspended applicant's registration as liquidator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 555">applicant sought stay to restrain publication of board's determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 555">need for plaintiff to show a serious question to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 555">whether board must look at the particular circumstances of each case in assessing conflict of interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 555">application of balance of convenience test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 555">adverse affect on applicant's reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 555">serious inconvenience to applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 555">protective nature of board's function ensuring compliance with professional codes of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 555">foreseeable harm if stay is granted and hearing is expedited.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">voluntary administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">deed of company arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">termination of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">construction of section 445d(1) corporations act 2001</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">circumstances of application of section 445d(1)(a) and (b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">interrelationship of section 445d(1)(a) and (b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">meaning of "false or misleading"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">meaning of "material"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">role of informal seeking of views of creditors in deciding materiality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">whether failure to call meeting of creditors in circumstances when deed required it to be called is a material contravention of the deed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">whether winding up proceedings being on foot prevents deed administrator from calling meeting of creditors to consider placing company into liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">whether a deed can provide for the de facto winding up of the company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">in what circumstances payment of different amounts to creditors bound by a deed is permissible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">role of good faith between creditors in operation of deed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">section 445d(1)(e) does not apply to action contrary to the deed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">relevance of a deed allowing an insolvent company to continue to trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">relevance of substantial departure in practice from proposal put to creditors at time deed was adopted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.18">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">operation of discretion to set aside deed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.19">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">relevance of interests of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.20">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">relevance of public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.21">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">public interest factors which can be taken into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.22">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">significance of provision of false or misleading information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.23">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">whether termination to be affected on application by person said to be a disputed creditor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.24">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">procedure to achieve winding up by the court when deed terminated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.25">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.26">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">arrangements with creditors without sequestration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.27">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">composition under the general law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.28">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">whether, and in what circumstances, special benefits can be provided to one creditor bound by a composition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.29">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">juristic basis of prohibition on one creditor bound by a composition receiving a special benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.30">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">role of consideration in compositions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.31">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.32">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">general contractual principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.33">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.34">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">role of consideration in composition between debtor and creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.35">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">juristic basis on which court prevents one creditor bound by a composition from receiving a special benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.36">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.37">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">contempt, attachment and sequestration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.38">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">action out of court frustrating litigation in court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.39">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">when a contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 65">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 65">statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 65">anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 65">proper construction of the statutory insurance scheme under the building services corporation act 1989 subsequently re-named home building act 1996 ("the act") and of building services corporation regulation 1990</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 65">whether approval by administrator of the scheme, fair trading administration corporation ("ftac"), could be revoked in the circumstances and having regard to belated contention not previously made before consumer trader and tenancy tribunal and on appeal on question of law to the supreme court that building defects fell outside clause 9 of the regulations being design defects</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 65">jurisdictional fact or matter decided in course of decision-making process and relevant factors or indicators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 65">capacity to revoke earlier approval of payment prior to payment being made and after ten years having regard to clause 10 of regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 65">capacity to settle disputed claims under s101(1) and s105(3) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 65">ftac as model litigant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 65">effect of statutory interpretation producing oppressive or absurd result further reason for rejecting it when not compelled by language of the statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 65">indemnity costs where abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 65">capacity to make cost orders against builder when builder a party in only one set of proceedings against it and not the parallel proceedings brought by ftac.   legislation cited:  building services corporation act 1989 (subsequently re-named home building act 1989 from 1996) part 6 , s 85 (d); s 96 (2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1000">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1000">australian securities and investments commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1000">procedures relating to making cancellation order under s 1292 of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1000">duties required by an australian law to be carried out by a registered company auditor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1000">relevance of australian auditing standards</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 702">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 702">voluntary administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 702">procedure for convening of second creditors' meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 702">curing late convening of second creditors' meeting under section 1322(4) corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 702">curing late convening of second creditors' meeting under section 447a corporations law and corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 702">ability of order under section 447a to cure past defects</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 702">powers of chairperson of second creditors' meeting to adjourn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 702">inappropriateness of court making declarations concerning matter involving judgment or discretion which has been entrusted to companies auditors and liquidators disciplinary board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 702">excusing breaches under section 1318 corporations act 2001</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 702">what types of breaches can be excused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 702">relieving from civil liability under section 1322(4)(c) corporations act 2001</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 702">what counts as "civil liability"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 702">whether declaration should be made about admissibility or relevance of evidence in proceedings in companies auditors and liquidators disciplinary board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[2003] AATA 827">workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[2003] AATA 827">cervical spondylosis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[2003] AATA 827">aggravation of cervical spondylosis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[2003] AATA 827">whether employment made material contribution to aggravation  litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[2003] AATA 827">commonwealth as "model litigant"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[2003] AATA 827">comcare as emanation of commonwealth for litigation purposes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[2003] AATA 827">obligations of commonwealth entities involved in litigation against private persons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">re minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte lam  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">application for certiorari and prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">cancellation of applicant's visa for failure to pass character test under s 501(6) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">decision maker informed applicant that it would seek information from third party but then did not do so</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">whether applicant denied procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">legitimate expectation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">contraventions of civil penalty provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">orders for compensation and pecuniary penalties and disqualification from managing corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether error shown in the trial judge's findings of contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">consideration of appellate review of first instance findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether findings paid regard to matters outside the plaintiff's pleaded and particularised case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">consideration of functions of pleadings and particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">to ensure procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">contraventions of s208 of the act relating to giving a financial benefit to a related party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether payment of money to related party as loan or held on trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">if held on trust whether a bare trust for payer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">in any event was giving a financial benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">financial benefit not on reasonable arms length terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">no error in findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.14">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">involvement in the contraventions of s208</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.15">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether necessary to know financial benefit was given otherwise on reasonable arms length terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.16">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">sufficient to know facts whereby financial benefit was given otherwise than on reasonable arms length terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.17">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">contraventions of s260a of the act relating to a company giving financial assistance to acquire its shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.18">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">same payment of money</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.19">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether material prejudice to the company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.20">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether opinion evidence of material prejudice properly admitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.21">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">no error in holding that opinion wholly or substantially based on witness's experience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.22">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">even without the opinion evidence, material prejudice whether or not money held on trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.23">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">no error in findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.24">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">involvement in the contraventions of s260a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.25">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether plaintiff must prove knowledge of facts constituting material prejudice to the company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.26">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">not necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.27">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">in any event there was knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.28">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">contraventions of ss180, 181, 182 and 183 of the act relating to director's duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.29">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">same payment of money and use of the money in various ways</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.30">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether opinion evidence that conduct was contrary to the provisions properly admitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.31">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">again no error in holding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.32">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">no error in trial judge's findings of contraventions of ss180, 181, 182</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.33">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">but conduct alleged and proved did not constitute contravention of s183</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.34">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">jones v dunkel inferences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.35">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether available in civil penalty proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.36">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">are civil proceedings and inferences available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.37">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">were available on the facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.38">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">rules of prosecutorial fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.39">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether applied so that plaintiff obliged to call a material witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.40">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">did not apply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.41">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">in any event no miscarriage if witness not called</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.42">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">causation of loss to the company paying the money</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.43">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">necessity to show company would not have paid if director's duties fulfilled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.44">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether analogy with claims against defaulting fiduciaries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.45">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">not analogous and must show causation in fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.46">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">on facts no error in finding of causation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.47">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">loss through loss of use of money</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.48">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether analogy with claims against defaulting fiduciary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.49">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">not analogous and must show loss in fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.50">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">different interest rate to calculate loss from that used by trial judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.51">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">pecuniary penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.52">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">trial judge's orders affirmed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.53">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">disqualifications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.54">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether can make order as to some corporations only</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.55">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">order is as to management of corporations and can not do so</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.56">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">in any event trial judge's orders affirmed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[2002] AATA 443">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[2002] AATA 443">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[2002] AATA 443">banning order s. 829 corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[2002] AATA 443">whether tribunal limited by the grounds upon which the reviewable decision was made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[2002] AATA 443">whether tribunal can consider other grounds on which the reviewable decision could have been based</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[2002] AATA 443">tribunal not limited to original grounds specified in reviewable decision.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 202">workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 202">commonwealth employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 202">appeal from a decision of the administrative appeals tribunal deciding that the applicant did not suffer from any permanent impairment attributable to her employment.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 202">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 202">rule in browne v dunn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 202">whether it is 'rule of evidence'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 202">whether natural justice required that evidence introduced to contradict that of the applicant should first be put to her so that she could explain the contradiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 202">whether sufficient notice of the contradiction had been given</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 202">whether any unfairness to the applicant resulted.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">cited from="[1993] FCA 202">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">cited from="[1993] FCA 202">privilege against self-incrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.11">cited from="[1993] FCA 202">whether adverse inferences can be drawn against a person by reason that the person has asserted a claim to privilege against self-incrimination.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.12">cited from="[1993] FCA 202">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.13">cited from="[1993] FCA 202">duty to provide reasons for the decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.14">cited from="[1993] FCA 202">adequacy of reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.15">cited from="[1993] FCA 202">standard to be expected of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.16">cited from="[1993] FCA 202">whether the reasons satisfactorily explained the basis of the tribunal's decision.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 630">trade practices (consumer protection)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 630">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 630">advertisement dealing with effects of environmental tobacco smoke on non-smokers (passive smoking) published in several newspapers each having substantial circulation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 630">purport of advertisement that passive smoking not shown to be harmful to health of non-smokers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 630">only consideration, tolerance and mutual respect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 630">whether statements in advertisement that there was little evidence and nothing which proved scientifically that cigarette smoke causes disease in non-smokers misleading or deceptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">cited from="[1992] FCA 630">whether advertisement published "in trade or commerce"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">cited from="[1992] FCA 630">whether injunctive relief warranted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">cited from="[1992] FCA 630">proper construction of advertisement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">cited from="[1992] FCA 630">consideration of types of persons to whom advertisement directed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.10">cited from="[1992] FCA 630">analysis of complex scientific, medical and statistical evidence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">decision of administrative character made under enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct engaged in for purpose of making decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">review of decisions and conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">ambit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 3 , 5 , 6 .  broadcasting and television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">commercial broadcasting licences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">australian broadcasting tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">power to suspend or revoke licence if satisfied that licensee no longer fit and proper person to hold licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">controller of licensee not fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">whether licensee fit and proper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct before commencement of licence period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">broadcasting act 1942 (cth), s. 88.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">cited from="[1989] HCA 46">criminal law (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">cited from="[1989] HCA 46">trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">cited from="[1989] HCA 46">delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">cited from="[1989] HCA 46">whether common law right to speedy trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">cited from="[1989] HCA 46">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">cited from="[1989] HCA 46">stay of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">cited from="[1989] HCA 46">25 edw i c 29 (magna carta)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">cited from="[1989] HCA 46">imperial acts application act 1969 (n.s.w.), s. 6.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">cited from="[1988] FCA 339">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">cited from="[1988] FCA 339">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">cited from="[1988] FCA 339">whether an application delivered by post and returned by district registrar of tribunal because not accompanied by the required filing fee has nevertheless been validly made within relevant limitation period.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">cited from="[1988] FCA 339">whether application is validly made even though required filing fee is not proffered.  administrative appeals tribunal regulations , regs. 9, 19 and 20  administrative appeals tribunal act, 1975</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">cited from="[1988] FCA 339">ss. 29 , 68 and schedule 1.  customs act, 1901</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">cited from="[1988] FCA 339">ss.167 , and 273ga</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">conduct likely to mislead or deceive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">selling goods virtually identical to goods manufactured by another</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">goods tagged with manufacturer's label</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 52(1)*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 81">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 81">application for order pursuant to s 447c(2) of corporations act 2001 (cth) declaring whether or not administrator was validly appointed by defendant company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 81">where appointment based on resolution of sole director of company who was bankrupt and disqualified from managing corporations by operation of s 206b(3) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 81">whether invalid appointment can be validated by s 201m of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 81">application for order pursuant to s 447a(1) of the act if appointment of administrator declared to be invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 81">whether substantial injustice would be caused by order validating an otherwise invalid appointment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 846">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 846">whether administrator of deed of company arrangement (doca) obliged to convene meeting of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 846">construction of cl 3 of the prescribed provisions of schedule 8a to the corporations regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 846">meaning of expression "no longer practicable ... either to continue to carry on the business of the company or to implement this deed"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 846">meaning of "final distribution" as used in doca</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 81" id="cs0">Mr Calabretta's evidence was that, after conducting all company, director and conflict searches, he completed and executed a consent to act as voluntary administrator of the defendant. No point was taken at the hearing about the fact that this written consent was given on 2 October 2009, plainly after the purported appointment by the defendant of Mr Calabretta as administrator: see s 448A of the Act. This may itself be a ground for impugning Mr Calabretta's appointment: Gould v Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board [2009] FCA 475 ; (2009) 71 ACSR 648. However, as the point was not taken by any interested party, and as no submissions have been made in relation to it, I will simply note that it may have constituted an independent ground for holding that the appointment was not valid. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1017" id="cs1">The orders were consequential upon two earlier judgments that I have given in this proceeding and another related proceeding: Gould v Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board [2009] FCA 475 and Gould v Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board (No 2) [2009] FCA 846 (together, Earlier Reasons for Judgment). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 846" id="cs2">I published reasons for judgment in this proceeding on 12 May 2009: see Gould v Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board [2009] FCA 475 (Earlier Reasons). I will take the Earlier Reasons as read and will use the abbreviated forms of reference that I used in them. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 626" id="cs3">In the present case, counsel for the Applicant submitted that pursuant to s 1321 of the Act, the Court should reverse the decision of the First Respondent to refuse to exercise his casting vote, order that the Respondents be removed as the liquidators of the Company and, in their stead, appoint Mr Slattery as the Company's liquidator. In support of that application, Counsel for the Applicant relied upon the following facts and matters: the Applicant accounted for 99.8% of the Company's indebtedness and was the only truly independent creditor: see [6] above. CIA was a related entity of the Company and there was no material before the Court concerning the relationship, if any, between DLC Consultants and Mr Turner; the Applicant was willing to provide an indemnity to Mr Slattery but not to the current liquidators --- the Respondents; although the Code was not the law, it was permissible to test performance of the First Respondent against the Code (eg Gould v Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board [2009] FCA 475 at [49] and Dean-Willcocks v Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board [2006] FCA 555 ; (2006) 59 ACSR 698 at [21] - [34] ) and the First Respondent did not properly comply with it because he did not properly turn his mind to how the casting vote was to be exercised consistent with the matters identified in the Code. Of particular significance was the alleged failure of the First Respondent to turn his mind to the matters set out in paras 1 and 2 above.
The Applicant did not challenge the Respondents' competency or their independence. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 33 Procedure of Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 88A Public document of a body corporate</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 448B Administrator must be registered liquidator</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 449E Remuneration of administrator</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 450E Notice in public documents etc. of company</title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 532 Disqualification of liquidator</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1280 Registration of auditors</title>
<title id="l9">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1292 Powers of Board in relation to auditors and liquidators</title>
<title id="l10">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1308 False or misleading statements</title>
<title id="l11">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l12">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 48 Proof of contents of documents</title>
<title id="l13">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 69 Exception: business records</title>
<title id="l14">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l15">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l16">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l17">COMPANIES ACT 1981 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 934">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 934">substantial identity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 934">deceptive similarity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 934">goods of the same description</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 934">non-use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 934">obstacle to use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 934">discretion not to remove trade mark even though non-use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 934">use " in good faith "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 934">no special facts or circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 934">evidence of internet search</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 256">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 256">application for summary judgment made under s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 256">whether defences had no reasonable prospects of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 256">defences to allegation of trade mark infringement could not succeed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 256">defences to allegations of copyright infringement, passing off, and contraventions of the fair trading act 1999 (vic) and the trade practices act 1974 (cth) raised questions of fact to be determined at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 256">application successful in part.    intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 256">whether marks appearing on the respondents' products were deceptively similar to the applicant's trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 256">whether cancellation of registered trade mark under s 88 of the trade marks act 1955 (cth) could operate retrospectively.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 27">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 27">whether the registered trade mark should be removed from the register for non-use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 27">meaning of "used...in the course of trade...by a person"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 27">whether there was an intention to use or authorisation to use the trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 27">whether the actual use of the mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 27">prospective operation of an order to remove a trade mark from the register</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 27">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 27">deceptive similarity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 27">goods of the same description  trade marks act 1995 (cth), ss 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 13 , 17 , 92 , 100 , 101 , 120 , 123 , 127  trade marks act 1955</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 27">1958 (cth), s23(1)(b)   blackadder v good roads machinery company inc [1926] hca 57 ; (1926) 38 clr 332 applied ; carnival cruise lines inc v sitmar cruises limited [1994] fca 936 ; (1994) 120 alr 495 applied ; estex clothing manufacturers pty limited v ellis and goldstein limited (1967) 116 clr 254 followed ; mid sydney pty ltd v australian tourism co ltd (1998) 90 fcr 236 referred to ; jackson  co v napper (1886) 35 ch d 162 cited ; polo textile industries pty ltd v domestic textile corporation pty ltd [1993] fca 203 ; (1993) 42 fcr 227 followed ; re the registered trade mark "yanx" [1951] hca 28 ; (1951) 82 clr 199 applied ; riv-oland marble co (vic) pty ltd v settef spa (1988) 19 fcr 569 discussed ; settef spa v riv-oland marble co (vic) pty ltd (1987) 10 ipr 402 followed ; southern cross refrigerating co v toowoomba foundry pty ltd (1954) 91 clr 592 followed ; s  i publishing pty ltd v australian life saver pty ltd [1999] fca 316 ; (1998) 88 fcr 354 referred to ; transport tyre sales pty ltd v montana tyres rims and tubes pty ltd [1999] fca 329 ; (1999) 93 fcr 421 followed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 135">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 135">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 135">applications for removal of respondent's trade marks from register in respect of certain goods and services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 135">applications made on both grounds in s 92(4) of the trade marks act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 135">whether applicant a person aggrieved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 135">respondent made general allegation of trade mark infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 135">applicant was a person aggrieved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 135">whether applications complied with trade marks regulations 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 135">supporting statutory declaration did not make reference to intention to use the trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 135">applications did not comply with the regulations for the purposes of the ground in s 92(4)(a) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 135">respondent has shown use of the trade marks on some computer peripheral devices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 135">separate description of goods for which use established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 135">convergence between computer related goods and consumer electronic products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 135">brand extension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 135">discretion in s 101(3) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 135">discretion exercised to maintain trade mark registrations in their current form with respect to the removal goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 135">no use of the trade marks in respect of the removal services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">citing from="[2009] FCA 135">no suggestion of convergence of services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">citing from="[2009] FCA 135">trade marks removed from the register in respect of the removal services</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 256" id="cs0">Such considerations influenced the decision of Flick J in E.  J. Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Pty Limited (No 2) (2008) 78 IPR 334 ; [2008] FCA 1005. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 27" id="cs1">The primary judge published reasons on 20 June 2008 ( E  J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Limited [2008] FCA 934) which first addressed the question of infringement and secondly addressed the use of the registered mark by the registered owner in the context of determining whether the mark should be removed from the Register. Further reasons were published on 27 June 2008 ( E  J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Limited (No 2) [2008] FCA 1005) which concerned the day on which the removal from the Register should take effect. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 135" id="cs2">The exercise of the discretionary power to remove a mark under s 101(2) of the Act is as at the date upon which the Court makes the order for removal ( E  J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 1005 ; (2008) 78 IPR 334 at [4] per Flick J). This is a hearing de novo and the parties have adduced evidence in this hearing directed to the exercise of discretion. As it happens, the date for consideration of the evidence is not determinative of the outcome. The evidence relied upon by Pioneer KK is of confusion during the relevant period, of convergence of computer and audio-visual technologies and of brand extension by other companies operating in the computer and audio-visual fields that was evident in that period and predicted at that time to continue. The evidence with respect to post-relevant period convergence and potential for confusion has simply validated that prediction. The facts relevant to the exercise of the discretion
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 79 Renewal within 6 months after registration expires</title>
<title id="l2">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 98 Trade mark restored to Register if notice of opposition filed within extended time</title>
<title id="l3">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 101 Determination of opposed application--general</title>
<title id="l4">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 127 Special case--plaintiff not entitled to damages etc.</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 479">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 479">persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 479">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 479">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FMCA 479">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FMCA 479">refusal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">szbel v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">protection visa decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant claimed he feared persecution on basis of his conversion to christianity if returned to iran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">delegate of the first respondent refused to grant appellant protection visa because not satisfied of the genuineness of appellant's conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">review by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant invited by tribunal to give evidence relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant gave evidence addressed to the delegate's concern regarding the genuineness of his conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa on the basis that appellant's claims were not credible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether tribunal failed to notify the appellant adequately of the issues to which its reasoning processes were directed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether failure of tribunal to ask the appellant to address issues that it considered might be important amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1602">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1602">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1602">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1602">whether tribunal correctly applied the chan test by finding that the incidence of rape and sexual abuse by military officers of female draftees did not occur on a sufficient scale to constitute persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1602">whether tribunal erred in law by not asking itself the right question</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1602">whether rape and sexual abuse of female draftees by military officers was "systematic"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1602">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1602">ss 91r(1)(b) and (1)(c) of the migration act 1958 (cth).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91R Persecution</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">circumstances in which a later full court can depart from an earlier full court decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">stare decisis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">determining ratio decidendi</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">application of minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v al shamry (2001) 110 fcr 27  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">the application of s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">meaning of 'application', 'information', and 'reason, or part of the reason' in s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 13">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 13">application for leave to raise new grounds of appeal from decision of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 13">proposed new grounds could have been raised before federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 174">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 174">application for spouse visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 174">no question of principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 174">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">decision of minister's delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">protection visa sought on basis that appellant was a practitioner of falun gong</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">where minister's delegate made adverse findings on credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">where minister's delegate failed to put information to the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether failure to have regard to information supplied by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether minister's delegate failed to consider future risk of harm to appellant in circumstances where appellant's claim to be an active proponent of falun gong in australia had been accepted. practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">fresh evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">new grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether expedient in the interests of justice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">saap  anor v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">decision of refugee review tribunal ("tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal invited the first appellant to appear to give evidence and present arguments under migration act 1958 (cth), s 425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">evidence was later taken from first appellant's daughter in absence of first appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal affirmed decision under review by relying on information obtained from first appellant's daughter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to give the first appellant particulars in writing of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to invite the first appellant in writing to comment on information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached migration act , s 424a.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">construction of migration act , s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the provisions of pt 7 div 4 have sequential or ambulatory operation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevance of refugee convention in case of ambiguity.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether a breach of migration act , s 424a amounts to jurisdictional error that invalidates the decision.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">general law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached rules of procedural fairness.  administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether grant of relief should be withheld on discretionary grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevant factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s 39b.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">joinder of party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.24">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal was not named as a party for the relief sought under judiciary act , s 39b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.25">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the tribunal was a necessary party to the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.26">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">"officer or officers of the commonwealth"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.27">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act , s 39b.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 56">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 56">application for spouse visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 56">where relationship between appellant and sponsoring spouse has ceased</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 56">where appellant claims to have suffered domestic violence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 56">meaning of phrase 'domestic violence' in migration regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 56">whether 'violence' as used in regulation 1.23(2)(b) of the migration regulations 1994 requires the application or threat of application of physical force</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 56">whether 'violence' can encompass psychological or emotional violence precedents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 56">appellate jurisdiction of federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 56">where previous full court decision on matters arising for determination are obiter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 56">stare decisis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 56">circumstances in which appropriate for full court to decline to follow previous decision of the same court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">application for protection visa refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">tribunal's understanding of the word 'persecution'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">s 424a of migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">whether information was 'the reason or part of the reason' for affirming the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">meaning of 'information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">identification of the 'reason' for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">an interpretative task</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">discretionary ground to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">re refugee review tribunal; ex parte aala  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">failure to afford procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">prosecutor denied opportunity to be heard on matters affecting credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prosecutor denied possibility of a successful outcome.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">nature of constitutional writ of prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">availability of writ of prohibition for failure to accord procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prohibition available as of right or by discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether application should be rejected due to delay.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">construction of constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">meaning to be given to words in s 75(v)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">relevance of meaning at time of commencement of constitution .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">new trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">denial of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">submission that evidence of witness should not be accepted stopped by judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">evidence accepted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">whether new trial should be granted.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 359A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">HEALTH INSURANCE (PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVIEW) REGULATIONS 1999 </title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] WASCA 138">sale of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] WASCA 138">second-hand backhoe machine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] WASCA 138">consumer sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] WASCA 138">implied conditions of merchantable quality and/or fitness for purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] WASCA 138">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] WASCA 138">silence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] WASCA 138">alleged duty to disclose defects</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] WASCA 138">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] WASCA 138">cost of effecting repairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] WASCA 138">value of machine sold</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] WASCA 138">measure of damages for breach of contract and for misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] WASCA 70">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] WASCA 70">agreement for hire of equipment for the extraction of gold</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] WASCA 70">breach of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] WASCA 70">counterclaim for damages or alternatively misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] WASCA 70">test for misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] WASCA 70">effect that an exclusion or exemption clause has on a statutory claim for damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 243">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 243">expert evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 243">admissibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 243">evidence act 1995 (nsw), s 79</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 243">car stolen despite engine immobiliser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 243">expert had no experience in immobilisers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 243">based opinion on internet materials and investigations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 243">whether expert had relevant expertise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 243">whether expert expressed relevant opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 243">whether opinion based on expertise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 243">whether opinion expressed in admissible form jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 243">appeal from local court under local courts (civil claims) act 1970 (nsw), s 69(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 243">whether appeal against the rejection of an expert report was an appeal "in point of law"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 243">expertise a question of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 243">whether alleged error material to the outcome</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] WASC 106">contract for hire of mining machinery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] WASC 106">termination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] WASC 106">action for recovery of unpaid instalments of hire and incidental services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] WASC 106">interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] WASC 106">total failure of consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] WASC 106">set offcounterclaim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] WASC 106">damages for misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] WASC 106">implied warranty of fitness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] WASC 106">consumer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2005] WASC 106">exclusion of warranty of fitness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2005] WASC 106">quantum of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2005] WASC 106">fundamental breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2005] WASC 106">effect of exclusion clause in event of misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2005] WASC 106">liability of alleged accessory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2005] WASC 106">reliance damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2005] WASC 106">claim for losses of profits to be made by mining venture for which hired machinery employed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2005] WASC 106">interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 870">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 870">witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 870">expert witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 870">witness not provided with expert witness code of conduct prior to embarking on task of opinion formation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 870">expert provided with code before report completed, and report states that it complies with code and witness undertakes to be bound by code</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 870">whether evidence to be rejected under part 36, rule 13c supreme court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 870">whether evidence to be rejected under section 135 evidence act 1995</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 165">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 165">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 165">personal injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 165">collision between motorcycle and motor car</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 165">absence of direct testimonial evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 165">difficulty of ascertaining relevant facts  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 165">expert opinion evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 165">evidence act 1995 (nsw) s 79</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 165">expert reports</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 165">admissibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 165">requirement that opinion be based on assumptions capable of proof by admissible evidence  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 165">tendering of expert evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 165">where called early in party's case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 165">where not in satisfactory form</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 165">objections to evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 165">time appropriately taken</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 165">appropriate procedure where objection taken after close of plaintiff's case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 165">failure to follow</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 165">consequences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.19">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 165">d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">slip and fall</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">whether employer failed to provide a safe means of access between car park and offices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">whether stairs slippery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">whether expert evidence on slipperiness of stairs should have been accepted by trial judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">discussion in obiter dicta about credibility of party-witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">where employee injured whilst walking between roof-top car park and office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">where lack of previous slipping accidents on stairs  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">expert evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">admissibility and use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">discussion of common law and statutory requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">need for expert witness to reveal factual and intellectual basis of opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">evidence act 1995 (nsw), ss 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 and 80</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">henville v walker  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">real estate transaction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">home unit development</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">misleading representation by land agent to developer as to price which could be obtained for residential home units</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">incorrect estimate of likely costs of development made by developer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">quantification of damages where misleading or deceptive conduct is but one of a combination of circumstances bringing about the loss ultimately suffered.  damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">statutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">measure of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">relevance of common law analogies when quantifying damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">identification of loss or damage required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">causation of loss or damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">quantification of damage caused "by conduct of" person in breach of s 52.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 123">evidence act (1995) evidence-admissibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">austral pacific group limited v airservices australia  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">action by employee against appliance manufacturer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">manufacturer issued third party proceedings against commonwealth authority employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">federal jurisdiction attracted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">application by commonwealth authority to strike out manufacturer's third party notice against it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">whether commonwealth authority was liable as a joint tortfeasor "in respect of the same damage" as manufacturer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">whether employee's non-compliance with the requirement of election in s 45 of the safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth) ever subjected the commonwealth authority to liability to the employee.  federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">whether s 64 of the judiciary act 1903 (cth) operated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">whether s 79 of the judiciary act 1903 (cth) "picked up" ss 6 and 7 of the law reform act 1995 (q)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">whether ss 44 or 45 of the safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth) "otherwise provided" within the meaning of s 79 of the judiciary act 1903 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">hg v the queen  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">sexual assault</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">expert evidence excluded under s 409b of crimes act 1900 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">whether evidence of prior sexual assault is evidence of prior sexual activity or experience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">whether s 409b applies only to evidence of consensual prior sexual activity or experience.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">admissibility of expert opinion under evidence act 1995 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">expert opinion must be within field of specialised knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">whether expert opinion must be based on facts themselves admissible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">whether parts of opinion severable.  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">refusal to grant adjournment for purposes of calling expert evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">whether refusal constituted miscarriage of justice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 524">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 524">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 524">representations as to prospective rental returns made prior to purchase</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 524">whether representations of current belief as to future matter is a representation with respect to a future matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 524">whether application to amend pleadings after evidence closed and written submissions filed should be granted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 473">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 473">entry into contracts without calling for tenders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 473">whether decision under an enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 473">whether subject to judicial review.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 473">telecommunications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 473">alleged misleading and deceptive conduct whether failure to disclose confidential negotiations was misleading or deceptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 473">whether statement "you are on the tender list" was in breach of s.52.  misuse of market power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 473">whether grant of contracts without calling for tenders was a breach of s.46</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 473">what is the market in which the telephone directories are printed and published</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">cited from="[1993] FCA 473">was the purpose of not calling for tenders a prescribed purpose.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">trade practices (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">action for damages to be commenced within three years after cause of action accrued</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">conduct inducing giving of indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">accrual of cause of action to indemnifier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">trade practices act 1974(cth), s. 82.  federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">barred cause of action introduced by amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.11">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">whether permitted by rules of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.12">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">trade practices act 1974(cth), s. 82(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.13">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">federal court of australia act 1976(cth), s. 86</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.14">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">federal court rules 1979(cth), o. 13, r. 2(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">limitation of actions (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">action for breach of trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">six year limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">period inapplicable to actions founded on fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">onus of proving fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">trustee act 1925 (n.s.w.), s. 69.  practice and procedure (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">action for breach of trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">six year limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">period inapplicable to action founded on fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">claim outside six year period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">defence that action statute barred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">no reply alleging fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">non-appearance of defendant at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">judgment for defendant on ground that no trust established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.15">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.16">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">finding of fraud on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.17">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">trustee act 1925 (n.s.w.), s. 69.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 81">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 81">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 81">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 81">sale of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 81">prime mover</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 81">warranty that engine fully reconditioned</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 81">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 81">loss of earnings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 81">extent of recovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 81">mitigation of loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 81">purchaser impecunious</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 81">relevance to assessment of damages and mitigation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">privy council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">appeal from state supreme court invested with federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">matter arising under law made by commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">whether court exercising federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">import licences issued under customs (import licensing) regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">agreement relating to benefit of licensed quota</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">action to enforce agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">customs act 1901 (cth), s. 50(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">customs (import licensing) regulations, reg. 7,9,16</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.10">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">the constitution (63  64 vict. c.12), s. 76(ii)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.11">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">judiciary act 1901 (cth), s. 39.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">conduct likely to mislead or deceive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">selling goods virtually identical to goods manufactured by another</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">goods tagged with manufacturer's label</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 52(1)*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">conduct contravening part iv or part v of trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">implied conditions in contract of supply of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">supply of motor vehicle to consumer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">vehicle not of merchantable quality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">damages sought from supplier and manufacturer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.8">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">trade practices act 1974 (cth.) ss. 4 , 71 , 74a, 74d, 82 , 86 .  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.9">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.10">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">rules of court o.10 r.4; o.20 r.2.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.11">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.12">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.13">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">breach of implied condition in contract for supply of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.14">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">whether right to damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.15">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 4 , 71 , 74a, 74d, 82 , 86 .  high court and federal judiciary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.16">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.17">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.18">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">conduct contravening pt iv or pt v of trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.19">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">implied conditions in contract of supply of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.20">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">supply of motor vehicle to consumer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.21">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">vehicle not of merchantable quality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.22">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">damages sought from supplier and manufacturer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.23">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 4 , 71 , 74a, 74d, 82 , 86 .  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.24">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.25">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">federal court rules , o. 10, r. 4; o. 20, r. 2. held: (1) a breach of a condition which was implied by the trade practices act 1974 s. 71 does not involve conduct in contravention of the provisions of pt v of the act, because: (i) the breach was not conduct in supplying goods, but in the want of correspondence between the state of the goods supplied and the quality referred to in s.71 ; and (ii) s. 71 imposes an obligation upon one of the contracting parties as though the parties had embodied the obligation in the contract.  for the purposes of the act s.82 , a breach of the obligation imposed by s.71 was not a breach of an obligation imposed by the act but was a breach of an obligation imposed by the contract itself. thus proceedings for damages resulting from a breach of a s.71 condition, were not proceedings falling within s.82 and did not constitute a matter in which s.86 conferred jurisdiction on the federal court.  (2) section 74d of the act implied only a condition where the manufacturer supplied the goods to another person who acquired the goods for re-supply, it did not relate to an agreement between the manufacturer and consumer. further, the federal court does not have jurisdiction to grant relief in a claim arising solely pursuant to s.74d.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">name similar to that of company with established business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 4 (3), 52 *, 80 **, 82 .  injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">interim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.7">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.8">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">principles to be applied.   * trade practices act 1974 (cth), s, 52 is set out at p. 22, post.  ** the relevant provisions of s. 80 are set out at pp. 221-222, post.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 711">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 711">principles relevant to an award of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 711">whether court should depart from the ordinary rule</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 711" id="cs0">2 The central issue in this proceeding was whether the Lowes had established that, on account of defects in construction and design, the truck was unfit for the purpose of interstate long-haul transport. If so, they claimed damages for breach of implied contractual conditions as to fitness for purpose and merchantability, relying on s 71 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ("the TPA"): see Lowe v Mack Trucks Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 439 (" Lowe v Mack Trucks "). The Lowes also pursued a claim under s 52 of the TPA, to the effect that two of the respondent's sales representations were misleading and deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive. At trial, however, the Lowes failed to make out their case. In Lowe v Mack Trucks at [264], I concluded that the applicants had not shown that, on the balance of probabilities, the truck was not of merchantable quality and was unfit for the purpose of interstate, long-haul goods transport. Nor had they shown that the truck was other than as represented to them by the respondent's sales representative in March 1998.
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 12 Competence and compellability</title>
<title id="l2">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 52 Adducing of other evidence not affected</title>
<title id="l3">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 71 Exception: electronic communications</title>
<title id="l4">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 73 Exception: reputation as to relationships and age</title>
<title id="l5">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 76 The opinion rule</title>
<title id="l6">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 79 Exception: opinions based on specialised knowledge</title>
<title id="l7">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 82 Exclusion of evidence of admissions that is not first-hand</title>
<title id="l8">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 87 Admissions made with authority</title>
<title id="l9">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 135 General discretion to exclude evidence</title>
<title id="l10">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l11">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39 Federal jurisdiction of State Courts in other matters</title>
<title id="l12">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l13">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 71 Discharge of persons committed for trial</title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l15">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 </title>
<title id="l16">SALE OF GOODS ACT 1895 </title>
<title id="l17">SALE OF GOODS ACT 1895 - SECT 52 </title>
<title id="l18">SALE OF GOODS ACT 1895 - SECT 53 </title>
<title id="l19">GOODS ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l20">Goods Act 1958 - SECT 59 Remedy for breach of warranty</title>
</legistitles>
</case>