Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1730">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1730">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1730">protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1730">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1730">application for review of a decision of the rrt affirming a decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1730">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1730">primary decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1730">where applicant did not disclose that an application for review had been previously heard by the refugee review tribunal. practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1730">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1730">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1730">anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1730">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1730">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1730">whether aggravated abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1730">summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1730">whether applicant is a vexatious litigant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1730">institution of a vexatious proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1730">whether applicant has "habitually, persistently and without reasonable grounds" instituted other vexatious proceedings.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1071">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1071">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1071">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1071">summary dismissal of judicial review application as an abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1071">applicant previously commencing and discontinuing, or consenting to the dismissal of, other proceedings to review the same rrt decision.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1591">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1591">application for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1591">decision in 1999</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1591">ground not raised in previous appeal from same decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1591">allegation of factual error on the part of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1591">factual error if it existed is of no consequence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1591">appeal has no prospects of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 248">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 248">student visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 248">invalid cancellation of visa by the department of immigration  multicultural  indigenous affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 248">whether an invalid decision is 'no decision at all'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 248">whether merits review can be undertaken on an invalid decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 248">the role of the migration review tribunal in reviewing decisions administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 248">whether full merits review cures the defects in the original decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">bienstein v bienstein  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">removal of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">proceedings for adult child maintenance in family court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">whether a cause pending in a federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">whether matter arises under the constitution or involves its interpretation.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">appeal from decision of a single justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">whether leave to appeal is required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">whether order to refuse removal of proceedings is final or interlocutory.  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">application for disqualification of a justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">whether reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">justice had practised professionally in city where proceedings originated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">no imputed bias.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">muin v refugee review tribunal  lie v refugee review tribunal  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">alleged failure to have regard to relevant documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">alleged failure to provide reasonable opportunity to respond to adverse material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">jurisdictional error for denial of procedural fairness and natural justice.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">decision by minister to refuse application for visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">review of decision by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">obligation of secretary of department of immigration and multicultural affairs to give relevant documents to registrar of tribunal for purpose of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">nature and extent of obligation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">migration act 1958 (cth), ss 418(3) , 424 (1).  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">review of administrative decision by officers of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">refusal to grant protection visa to claimant for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.18">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">requirement of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.19">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">alleged failure to have regard to relevant documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.20">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">alleged failure to provide reasonable opportunity to respond to adverse materials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.21">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.22">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">availability of constitutional relief under s 75(v) and other relief for denial of procedural fairness and natural justice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">commonwealth constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">separation of judicial and non-judicial powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">vesting of non-judicial power in persona designata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">incompatibility with commonwealth judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">common law doctrine of incompatibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">judicial independence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">compatibility judged by reference to the function conferred, connection with non-judicial branch and independence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">nomination of a ch iii judge as persona designata to provide a report to a federal minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">s 10(1)(c) of the aboriginal and torres strait islander heritage protection act 1984 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">condition precedent to the exercise of a discretionary power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">incompatible function.   aborigines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">nomination by a minister pursuant to s 10(1)(c) of the aboriginal and torres strait islander heritage protection act 1984 (cth) of a "person" to provide a report</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">no power to nominate a person who is a ch iii judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">function incompatible with ch iii judicial power.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">action brought in australian state for damages for negligent accounting advice given in foreign country</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">loss suffered there and in australian state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">place of commission of tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">forum non conveniens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">appropriate forum.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1976] HCA 58">local government (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1976] HCA 58">demolition order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1976] HCA 58">whether owner entitled to be heard by council before order made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1976] HCA 58">local government act, 1919 (n.s.w.), s. 317b.  statutory authorities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1976] HCA 58">municipal council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1976] HCA 58">power to order owner of dilapidated house to demolish it within stipulated period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1976] HCA 58">right of appeal to district court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1976] HCA 58">whether owner entitled to be heard by council before order made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1976] HCA 58">whether presumptive right to be heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1976] HCA 58">legislative intention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1976] HCA 58">whether right to hearing negated by existence of right of appeal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">summary power to terminate action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">jurisdiction under rule of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">high court rules, o. 26, r. 18.  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">use for services of commonwealth or state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"authority of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">commissioner for railways</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">construction of carriages for use in state railway system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"services of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">written authority to use invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">when contract itself sufficient authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">patents act 1952-1960 (cth), ss. 125, 132*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 569">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 569">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 569">protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 569">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 569">application for review of decision of refugee review tribunal.  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 569">application for leave to institute fresh proceedings.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 946">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 946">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 946">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 946">application for review of delegate's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 946">where delegate's decision previously reviewed by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 946">where applicant previously sought judicial review in the federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 946">where applicant previously appealed to federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">citing from="[2006] FMCA 946">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">citing from="[2006] FMCA 946">no reviewable error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 378">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 378">no question of principle</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 973" id="cs0">9 The applicant then sought leave to appeal and that came before me. After the applicant initially failed to appear, I granted him leave to set aside my earlier decision, dismissing the application, heard it and determined that, similarly to my earlier decision, the application was without substance: SZGGS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 224 and [2006] FCA 378. Heydon J dismissed an application in the High Court for leave to appeal out of time.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 569" id="cs1">The Applicant then sought leave to appeal against this decision. On 1 March 2006 Rares J dismissed the application (noting that the applicant had failed to appear) saying: I am of the opinion that there is no substance whatever in the proposed grounds of appeal. [2] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 993" id="cs2">6 The applicant sought to appeal from that decision but when the matter came before Branson J on 21 July 2005, he did not appear and her Honour dismissed the proceedings pursuant to 25(2)B(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). When the proceedings from which the current application were brought before Smith FM, he carefully considered the litigious history. He noted that the new proceedings before him purported to challenge the delegate's decision (see [2006] FMCA 63 [13]-[15]. That is, a wholly impermissible approach: SZGGS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 224 and the decision of Heydon J on appeal, SZGGS v MIMIA [2006] HCA Trans 352. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 990" id="cs3">It is not open, in proceedings of this kind, where an applicant has already applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal for his or her matter to be the subject of a review, to contend that the delegate's decision has any further validity in law following the decision of the Tribunal: see SZGGS v The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 224 and Heydon J's decision dismissing the summons seeking to appeal from that decision ( SZGGS v MIMIA [2006] HCA Trans 352).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 992" id="cs4">9 The submissions that were filed by the applicant on 5 July 2006 also seek to challenge the delegate's decision which had been the subject of his application to the Tribunal for review. That was plainly incompetent: see SZGGS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 224 and the decision of Heydon J refusing leave to appeal in that matter, SZGGS v MIMA [2006] HCA Trans 352 ; see also SZDPF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 85 , and Wong v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 242 ; (2004) 146 FCR 10. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1007" id="cs5">17 The application before his Honour was found to be an abuse of process (see [14]). It is clear that the attack on the delegate's decision has been made, as is frequently done in recent times, because the applicants, having failed to set aside in judicial review proceedings a decision of the Tribunal then seek to attack the decision of the delegate, the subject of the review. For the reasons that I explained in SZGGS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 224 and upheld by Heydon J in SZGGS v MIMIA  Anor [2006] HCA Trans 352 , it is not open to challenge a delegate's decision after there has been a full hearing on review of that decision by the Tribunal.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] HCATrans 352" id="cs6">He made orders dismissing the application as lacking any substance: see SZGGS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 224.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 946" id="cs7">I refer to the decisions of Rares J in the Federal Court in SZGGS v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 224 and also by his Honour in SZDCR v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 350.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 378" id="cs8">I pointed out to the applicant that his present proceedings involved an application for leave to appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court's dismissal of his attempt to review the decision of the delegate of the first respondent for the reasons that I set out in [12], [13] and [14] of my judgment SZGGS v The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 224.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 - REG 13.10 Disposal by summary dismissal</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">breach of guarantee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">damages claimed from respondents for breach of guarantee of profit shortfall of company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">profit guarantee originally given by vendor companies in share sale agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">respondents guaranteed any profit shortfall of company the subject of share sale agreement in 1998 and 1999</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">applicants leased property from respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">any profit shortfall to be made up by reduction of rent payable to applicants in respect of lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">profit shortfall claimed by applicants in 1998 and 1999</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">respondents failed to refund rent to purchaser company in amounts of profit shortfall</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">whether oral variation of agreed profit shortfall for year ending 1998</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">whether audit report for 1999 compliant with machinery of calculation in share sale agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">whether profit shortfall for 1998 understated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">whether change in control of company discharged respondents from guarantee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">whether acquisition of a new business by the company discharged respondents from guarantee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">whether valid consideration for guarantee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">whether written variations to the principal share sale agreement discharged guarantee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">whether applicants' claim statute barred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">whether managing director of first applicant represented that guarantee would not be enforced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">order 20 rule 2 of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">whether claim was abuse of process due to missing source financial material   evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">whether audit report detailing profit shortfall in 1999 admissible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">whether audit report akin to a banker's certificate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">whether provision for audit report in relation to profit shortfall in share sale agreement a "dobbs clause"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">audit report on 1999 profit shortfall based on source financial source material now missing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">whether audit report prejudicial to respondents and inadmissible under section 135 and section 136 of the evidence act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">whether audit report a business record under section 69 of the evidence act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">whether subsequent report created for the purpose of litigation and inadmissible under section 69(3) of the evidence act 1995 (cth)   agency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">whether co-surety second respondent liable for 1998 profit shortfall guarantee amount orally varied by first respondent and the first applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.28">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">whether first respondent had ostensible authority to bind second respondent to oral variation of profit shortfall amount for 1998   held: application successful in part</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.29">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">first respondent liable for damages to applicants for 1998 profit shortfall in the amount of $127,284</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.30">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">oral variation of profit shortfall for 1998 bound first respondent but not second respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.31">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">first respondent did not have ostensible authority to bind second respondent to variation of guarantee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.32">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">provision in share sale agreement for audit report on profit shortfall not a "dobbs clause"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.33">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">audit report not akin to a banker's certificate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.34">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">impossible to test accuracy of audit report or whether it complied with machinery of calculation in share sale agreement because of absence of source financial documentation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.35">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">no admissible evidence as to 1999 profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.36">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">claim as to 1999 profit shortfall not made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.37">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">no representation made by managing director of first applicant to first respondent that the profit shortfall guarantee would not be enforced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.38">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">change in control of company and acquisition of new business by company did not discharge liability of respondents under profit shortfall guarantee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.39">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">variations to principal share sale agreement did not discharge liability of respondents under profit shortfall guarantee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.40">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">valid consideration provided for guarantee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.41">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">claim not abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.42">cited from="[2009] FCA 675">audit report a business record but inadmissible for unreliability and prejudice under section 135 of the evidence act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2009] WASC 1">appeal by leave from decision of the state administrative tribunal to the court exercising its jurisdiction other than as the court of appeal on a question of error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2009] WASC 1">whether errors of law made out  whether error of law in the form of alleged denials of procedural fairness in relation to sat's use of certain judicial findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2009] WASC 1">whether denials alleged made out  whether error of law in relation to sat's use of certain judicial findings of fact made by the judge as a result of errors of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2009] WASC 1">whether errors of law by sat  whether error of law in alleged failure by sat properly to take account of certain findings of finance brokers supervisory board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2009] WASC 1">whether such failure made out  orders to be made where some of the errors of law alleged made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2009] WASC 1">whether court should decide matter before the sat or remit that matter to the sat for its decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 107">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 107">appellant successful overall but not on all issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 107">discretion to apportion costs on an issue by issue basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 107">whether departure from usual rule is appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 568">[costs]</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 568">costs ordered against unsuccessful defendant that was successful in defending other claims against it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 568">orders to avoid double dipping</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 568">whether a bullock or sanderson order should be made in respect of costs plaintiff ordered to pay successful defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 568">[interest]</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 568">whether plaintiff entitled to interest during periods of alleged substantial delay.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 135 General discretion to exclude evidence</title>
<title id="l2">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 136 General discretion to limit use of evidence</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 51A Interest up to judgment</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 2078">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 2078">scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 2078">reciprocal break fee arrangement between target company and acquiring company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 2078">break fee payable if members of target company voted against proposal even in absence of any competing proposal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 2078">whether presence of such a "naked no vote" provision should prevent scheme being considered by shareholders and, if agreed to by them, being approved by court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1571">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1571">two schemes of arrangement under pt 5.1 of corporations act 2001 (cth) (the act)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1571">merger of two professional golfing associations structured as not-for-profit companies limited by guarantee, into a new association also structured as a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee, in which the members of the merging companies become members</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1571">assets and liabilities of the two merging companies to be transferred to, and accepted by, the new company, by a transfer order to be made under s 413 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1571">the two existing companies then to be deregistered under s 413(1)(d) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1571">21 classes of members in one of the existing companies and six in the other, but only 12 in the new company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1571">whether necessary that separate meetings be held of the members within the respective existing 27 classes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1571">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1571">whether directions should be made fixing quorum for each scheme meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1571">consideration of power to fix quorum.  held : (1) not appropriate that separate meetings of classes of members be held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 1571">sufficient that there be two meetings, one of all the members of each of the two merging companies; (2) orders made under s 1319 of the act fixing quorum for each scheme meeting.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">members' scheme of arrangement in relation to nrma limited ("association") and nrma insurance limited ("insurance") associated with the demutualisation only of insurance and with various structural changes between association and insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">court's function in convening scheme meetings and approving information memorandum in relation to complex proposals involving 1.8 million members of insurance and 1.2 million members of association</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">responsibilities of board and senior management to let documents speak for themselves</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">disclosure obligations in relation to company not limited by shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">role of asic</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">degree to which court looks at ultimate fairness of scheme at meeting convening stage and later scheme approval stage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">role of objectors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">cost orders for and against objectors only made after they have been heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">other potential legal impediments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">scope of "arrangement"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">what is approved by court when arrangements embrace associated steps for demutualising and implication of gambotto principles concerning expropriation of membership rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">effect of conditions subsequent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">legitimacy of scheme proxy to enable passing of later demutualisation resolutions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">relevant considerations when time gap between scheme resolutions and later demutualisation resolutions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">is former surrogate for later</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">identification of classes of members</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">no equitable constraint based on supposed common understanding of members that should remain forever a mutual</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">no trust of insurance's assets such as to preclude demutualisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">qualified duty of directors to do only what was lawful in carrying out obligation to implement demutualisation steps</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">cut-off of membership involves no legal contravention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">when should draft information memorandum be released to media where subject to change or potentially defamatory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">legal capacity of insurance and its parent nigl to pay dividends out of unrealised gains combined with realised gains and earned profits without contravening s254t of the corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.23">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">accounting standard aasb 1023 mandatory on insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.24">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">no foundation for submission that insurance's proposed new parent could not be listed on supposition that it could not pay dividends when that supposition not made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.25">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">s411 procedure not a privilege or requiring clean hands beyond its statutory preconditions including proper disclosure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.26">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">this an "arrangement within s411"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.27">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">no basis to preclude demutualisation if members so decide in what comprehended in "mutuality principles" or by reason of past accumulation of profits rather than "mutual pricing" or premium rebates</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.28">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">relevance of trend overseas to demutualise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.29">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">no basis for treating demutualisation as inevitable when this a matter for members' decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.30">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">shares issued by nigl are fully paid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.31">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">par value now abolished</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.32">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">position at court approval stage where court's discretion remains.  acts cited:  asic act 1989 (cth) s12da  corporations law s9, s112, s136, s162, s163, ss164-166, s250a and b, s254a, s254t, s254x, s295, s296, s297, s303, s305, s411, s412, s485, s501, s995, pt 2b, pt 2e</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1309">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1309">application under s 411(1) of the corporations act 2001 (cth) by a company for an order that a meeting of its members be convened to consider a scheme of arrangement between company and its members involving company becoming wholly owned subsidiary of another company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1309">application for approval of explanatory statement to accompany notice of meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1309">where shareholders of company passed resolution approving the scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1309">subsequent application for approval of scheme of arrangement under s 411(4) of the corporations act 2001 (cth).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1309" id="cs0">The guideline of the Takeovers Panel was that a break fee of not more than 1 per cent of the equity value was unlikely to be either anti-competitive or coercive: Guidance Note 7: Lock-up Devices at [7.18]. Lindgren J had regard to this guideline in Re APN News and Media (at 409-411 [48]-[53]) (see also Re Macquarie Capital Alliance Ltd [2008] NSWSC 745 ; (2008) 67 ACSR 484 (" Re Macquarie Capital Alliance Ltd ") at [46]; Re Hostworks Group Limited [2008] FCA 64 ; (2008) 26 ACLC 137 at [40] ff. ; Re Coles Group Limited (2007) 25 ACLC 1380 at [74]; Re Macquarie Private Capital A Ltd (2008) 26 ACLC 366 (" Re Macquarie Private Capital A Ltd ")at [21]-[22]; Re MBF Australia Ltd [2008] FCA 428 at [36] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 693" id="cs1">1 On 19 March 2008, I made an order pursuant to s 411(1) of the Corporations Act that the plaintiff (MBF) convene a meeting of its members for the purpose of their considering, and, if thought fit, agreeing (with or without modification) to a scheme of arrangement between MBF and its members. The reasons for the making of that order were published as MBF Australia Limited, in the matter of MBF Australia Limited [2008] FCA 428 (the Earlier Reasons), and I will take the Earlier Reasons as read and as being incorporated in these present reasons for judgment. As well, I will use in these reasons the abbreviated forms of reference that I used in the Earlier Reasons.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 9 Dictionary</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 112 Types of companies</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 411 Administration of compromises etc.</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1319 Power of Court to give directions with respect to meetings ordered by the Court</title>
<title id="l5">PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 2007 </title>
<title id="l6">PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 2007 - SECT 3.1 What this Act is about</title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 </title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 - REG 5.6.12 Notice of meeting</title>
<title id="l9">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 - REG 5.6.36A Facsimile copies of proxies</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT (CORPORATIONS) RULES 2000 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">proceedings relating to decisions of minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs refusing grant of student visa and refusing revocation of refusal to grant visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">where minister contended certain information protected under s 503a of migration act 1958 ("the act ")  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">whether anshun estoppel should apply to judicial review of administrative action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">questions concerning the construction of s 503a of the act unreasonably not raised in previous proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">whether special circumstances exist that permit raising questions in these proceedings that should reasonably have been raised in previous proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">no special circumstances found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1995] FCA 1299">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1995] FCA 1299">the anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1995] FCA 1299">whether applies to failure to raise a cross-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1995] FCA 1299">whether claims now made should reasonably have been raised in earlier proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1995] FCA 1299">whether there were "special circumstances" excluding the application of the anshun principle.   estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1995] FCA 1299">the anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1995] FCA 1299">whether applies to failure to raise a cross-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1995] FCA 1299">whether claims now made should reasonably have been raised in earlier proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1995] FCA 1299">whether there were "special circumstances" excluding the application of the anshun principle.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">estoppel; judgments and orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">res judicata and issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">principle in port of melbourne authority v. anshun proprietary limited</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">whether dismissal of a company's action based on s. 52 of the trade practices act created a res judicata binding directors and shareholders and other companies associated with the plaintiff, who had in various ways promoted its action, so as to estop them from maintaining separate actions under s. 52 for damage claimed to have been suffered by reliance on the same representations which founded the first action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">discussion of res judicata as a defence requiring to be raised by the pleading of appropriate facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">whether a defence of res judicata may be raised by a motion for dismissal or a stay of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">principles relating to the pleading of such a defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">whether any matter necessarily decided in the first action created an estoppel against the applicants in the later action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">whether the applicants in the later action were privies of the plaintiff in the first action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">examination of the doctrine of privity for the purposes of res judicata and issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">principle that there is no discretion in respect of an estoppel if it is actually applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">reciprocity of estoppels</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">whether american authorities dealing with collateral estoppel and extending the doctrine of res judicata are applicable in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">application of principles of res judicata and issue estoppel to consent judgments.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">whether unverified pleadings in an action can be used as admissions.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">hire of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">contractual indemnity by hirer against loss caused to owner from use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">action for damages against hirer and owner arising out of use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">notices of contribution between hirer and owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">claim of contribution by owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">apportionment of liability between defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">subsequent action by owner for indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">whether estopped by failure in original action to plead indemnity in defence to the claim for contribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">wrongs act 1958 (vict.) s. 24 (1) (c).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1714">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1714">review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1714">protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1714">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1714">anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1714">whether jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1714">whether adequate interpreting services provided to applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1714">whether applicant denied opportunity to give meaningful evidence to the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1714">applicant's credibility re his command of mandarin language</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1714">whether breach of s.425 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1714">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1714">credibility of applicant's claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1714">merits review not function of judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1714">whether breach of s.91r(3) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1714">meaning of " conduct ... in australia " in s.91r(3).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1714" id="cs0">In MZWHU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1387 at [22] , Middleton J summarised the principles applicable to determining whether an application should be dismissed on the grounds of res judicata: The rule of res judicata is that, generally speaking, no proceeding can be maintained on a cause of action upon which judgment has been entered. The cause of action is said to merge in the judgment, in the sense that it no longer has an existence independent of the judgment. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 2116" id="cs1">16 Whether the Federal Magistrate was right to conclude that the appellant was prevented from raising these matters pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata may be put to one side: cf Wong v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 242 ; (2004) 146 FCR 10 at [39] and MZWHU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1387 (" MZWHU ") and the authorities cited. On any view, the commencement of this proceeding by the appellant was and remains an abuse of process. The proceeding was doomed to fail. It is the latest in the history of repeated litigation over a period of approximately
10 years during which the appellant has unsuccessfully sought to establish error in a decision of the delegate made on 9 October 1997. The appellant did not raise any matter which would permit him to reagitate issues already considered and determined against him by the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court: for example, see SBFF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 178 ; (2007) 158 FCR 49 at [23] ; MZWHU at [30] and [31]; SZFOG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1170 at [22] - [29]; SZATR v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 986 at [16] - [18]; SYVB v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1093 at [16] and by the Full Court in Chu Sing Wun v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 78 FCR 314 at 323 (per Carr and Sundberg JJ) and 346-347 (per Kiefel J).
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 2115" id="cs2">20 While the appellant asserted that the political climate in Sri Lanka had become more unstable, it is apparent that the current proceeding does not raise any issue that was not addressed in the earlier Federal Court proceedings by Heerey J. Whether the Federal Magistrate was right to conclude that the appellant was prevented from bringing the claim pursuant to the doctrines of res judicata and further or alternatively, issue estoppel may be put to one side: cf Wong v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 242 ; (2004) 146 FCR 10 at [39] and MZWHU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1387 (" MZWHU ") and the authorities cited. On any view, the commencement of this proceeding by the appellant was and remains an abuse of process. The proceeding was doomed to fail. The appellant has not raised any matter which would permit him to reagitate issues already considered and determined against him by the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court: for example, see SBFF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 178 ; (2007) 158 FCR 49 at [23] ; MZWHU at [30] and [31]; SZFOG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1170 at [22] - [29]; SZATR v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 986 at [16]- [18]; SYVB v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1093 at [16] and by the Full Court in Chu Sing Wun v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 78 FCR 314 at 323 (per Carr and Sundberg JJ) and 346-347 (per Kiefel J). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l1">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39 Federal jurisdiction of State Courts in other matters</title>
<title id="l2">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 184">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 184">ownership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 184">first use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 184">combination mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 184">whether goods "of the same kind"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 184">whether word mark sufficiently distinctive to identify goods  passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 184">whether appellant raised geographical limitation of use before primary judge evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 184">evidential onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 184">whether primary judge's conclusions on evidence matters of impression</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2000] FCA 720">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2000] FCA 720">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2000] FCA 720">whether name used as a trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2000] FCA 720">whether name used in relation to restaurant services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2000] FCA 720">defences to infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2000] FCA 720">whether infringing party would be entitled to obtain registration of the mark had it applied for it in relation to "hotel services"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1242">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1242">alleged infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1242">"rolling stones" on cover of compact disc</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1242">whether use as a trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 310">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 310">registration in part a of "caplets" in respect of medicated tablets for human use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 310">whether there had been use by registered proprietor as a trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 310">whether trade mark should be removed from register for non-use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 310">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 310">whether use by alleged infringer as a trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 310">whether use by alleged infringer in good faith of a description of the character or quality of the alleged infringer's goods.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1990] FCA 175">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1990] FCA 175">registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1990] FCA 175">word according to its ordinary meaning a geographical name</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1990] FCA 175">whether a mark which is 100 per cent distinctive in fact must also be inherently adapted to distinguish before it is registrable under the trade marks act 1955</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1990] FCA 175">meaning of "adapted to distinguish" in sub-s. 26(1) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1990] FCA 175">whether both elements (a) and (b) in sub-s. 26(2) must be considered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1973] HCA 15">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1973] HCA 15">registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1973] HCA 15">word "whopper"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1973] HCA 15">descriptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1973] HCA 15">capable of becoming distinctive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1973] HCA 15">registration in other places</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1973] HCA 15">use in other places</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1973] HCA 15">relevance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1973] HCA 15">trade marks act 1955-1966 (cth), ss. 25 (1), 26 (2).  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1973] HCA 15">expert witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1973] HCA 15">opinion evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1973] HCA 15">principles governing admissibility.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1964] HCA 55">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1964] HCA 55">registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1964] HCA 55">geographical name</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1964] HCA 55">distinctive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1964] HCA 55">adapted to distinguish</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1964] HCA 55">trade marks act 1955-1958 (cth), ss. 25, 26.  held, that the word "michigan" is not adapted, and is not capable of becoming adapted, to distinguish earth-moving and like equipment with which the appellant is or may be connected in the course of trade from like goods in respect of which no such connexion subsists, and is thus not registrable under s. 25 of the trade marks act 1955-1958 (cth) in pt b of the register.  section 26 of the trade marks act 1955-1958 discussed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1367">trademarks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1367">whether trade mark capable of distinguishing designated goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1367">geographic reference</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1367">description of style of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1367">cancellation of trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1367">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 1367">trade marks act 1995 (cth), ss 41 , 88 (2)(a), (e) torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 1367">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 1367">whether there has been representation by the respondent to the public leading the public to believe the goods offered by the respondent are the applicant's goods trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 1367">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 1367">clear distinguishing features</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 1367">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss 52 , 53  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 1367">hearsay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">citing from="[2010] FCA 1367">ss 60 , 136 , 190(3) evidence act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 117">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 117">registered trade mark in respect of confectionery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 117">respondent's use was descriptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 117">effect of use diluted by prominence of other marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 117">not use as a trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 117">respondent could not have been aware of pending trade mark application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 117">use in good faith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 198">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 198">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 198">use of trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 198">descriptive words alongside registered marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 198">whether words appeared to consumers as possessing character of a brand</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] ATMO 34" id="cs0">Mr Ricketson was also critical of the applicant's reliance on usage of YELLOW with other trade marks. He acknowledged the case law relevant to the use of two or more trade marks together [8] . However, as he said, the outcome of such usage depends on a careful analysis of the facts of each particular case. Relevantly, in Sports Warehouse :
Where an application for registration relies on use, the question is whether the particular sign for which registration is sought has itself been used as a trade mark so as to become capable of distinguishing the relevant goods or services. In my view, when the "TW" logo was placed in close association with the words "TENNIS WAREHOUSE" in 2003, this had the effect of substantially diluting any trade mark significance that attached to the words "TENNIS WAREHOUSE" by themselves. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1367" id="cs1">I do not consider that any party before me sought to reformulate this test. Each party accepted it as the current and correct statement of the law. To the extent it was suggested otherwise, I do not consider that Foster J in Alcon Inc v Bausch  Lomb (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1299 was suggesting any reformulation. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] ATMO 113" id="cs2">In its submissions the applicant pointed me to the decision of Foster J in Alcon Inc v Bausch  Lomb (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1299 , arguing that the decision was directly on par with the situation in this opposition. I consider there are certainly some similarities between the cases, but I am of the opinion that this trade mark is much less obviously an acronym than was the case with the trade mark BSS, described as an acronym for "balanced salt solution". It therefore does not face quite the same number of hurdles in reaching a successful conclusion. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 117" id="cs3">52 This contention overlooks that the primary judge, speaking of the statutory defence, said (at [42]):
 To rely on this defence, the respondent must show it acted honestly and without any ulterior motive. See Johnson  Johnson Australia Pty Limited 30 FCR 236 per Gummow J at 353-354; Alcon Inc v Bausch  Lomb (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1299. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 198" id="cs4">To rely on this defence, the respondent must show it acted honestly and without any ulterior motive. See Johnson  Johnson Australia Pty Limited 30 FCR 236 per Gummow J at 353-354; Alcon Inc v Bausch  Lomb (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1299. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 55 Relevant evidence</title>
<title id="l2">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 122 Loss of client legal privilege: consent and related matters</title>
<title id="l3">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l4">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 6 Definitions</title>
<title id="l5">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 7 Use of trade mark</title>
<title id="l6">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 17 What is a trade mark?</title>
<title id="l7">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 24 Trade mark consisting of sign that becomes accepted as sign describing article etc.</title>
<title id="l8">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 41 Trade mark not distinguishing applicant's goods or services</title>
<title id="l9">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 57 Registration may be opposed on same grounds as for rejection</title>
<title id="l10">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 87 Amendment or cancellation--loss of exclusive rights to use trade mark</title>
<title id="l11">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 88 Amendment or cancellation--other specified grounds</title>
<title id="l12">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 89 Rectification may not be granted in certain cases if registered owner not at fault etc.</title>
<title id="l13">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 120 When is a registered trade mark infringed?</title>
<title id="l14">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 122 When is a trade mark not infringed?</title>
<title id="l15">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 234 Registration conclusive after 7 years</title>
<title id="l16">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 502">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 502">where new grounds raised on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 502">whether it is appropriate to treat the federal court as a court at first instance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 502">whether grounds raised have any merit. migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 502">whether tribunal considered particular social group claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 502">where tribunal found no serious harm inflicted on the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 502">where tribunal made a finding on relocation adverse to the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 502">appeal dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 309">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 309">review of refugee tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 309">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 309">tribunal rejected applicant's evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] FMCA 309">inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence were put to the applicant by the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2008] FMCA 309">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2008] FMCA 309">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 1">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 1">notice of invitation to appear issued by tribunal under s 425a of the migration act 1958 (cth) communicated effect of s 426(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 1">information forming part of tribunal's reason to affirm delegate's decision given to the appellant pursuant to s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 1">failure to contact appellant after non-attendance at hearing did not subvert invite issued under s 425.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">application for constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">applicant's visa cancelled under s 501(2) migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">ministerial direction no 21 made under s 499 migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">decision to cancel visa made by minister personally and not by a delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">minister gave considerable weight to "the best interests of the child"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">whether minister misconstrued direction no 21</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">whether minister took into account irrelevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">whether the minister was bound by direction no 21</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">whether misconstruction of direction no 21 amounted to jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">szbyr v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants were refused a visa under s 36(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants gave a statutory declaration to the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a visa partly on the basis of discrepancies between the statutory declaration and the appellants' oral evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief was available to the appellants.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">s 424a of the act , read with s 441a , requires that an applicant be given written notice of particulars of any information that would be a reason or a part of the reason for affirming a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether s 424a applied to the appellants' statutory declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">temporal scope of s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal breached s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether "information" included discrepancies or inadequacies in previously submitted evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "reason, or a part of the reason".  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">certiorari and mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">impact of discretionary considerations governing availability of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief should be denied on discretionary grounds for lack of a convention nexus.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">saap  anor v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">decision of refugee review tribunal ("tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">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="cp6.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">evidence was later taken from first appellant's daughter in absence of first appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal affirmed decision under review by relying on information obtained from first appellant's daughter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to give the first appellant particulars in writing of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to invite the first appellant in writing to comment on information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached migration act , s 424a.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">construction of migration act , s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the provisions of pt 7 div 4 have sequential or ambulatory operation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevance of refugee convention in case of ambiguity.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">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="cp6.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">general law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached rules of procedural fairness.  administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.18">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.19">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.20">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether grant of relief should be withheld on discretionary grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.21">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevant factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.22">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s 39b.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.23">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">joinder of party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.24">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal was not named as a party for the relief sought under judiciary act , s 39b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.25">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the tribunal was a necessary party to the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.26">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">"officer or officers of the commonwealth"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.27">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act , s 39b.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">tribunal had regard to information from lonely planet guide in rejecting aspect of appellant's claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">whether failure to provide appellant with opportunity to comment upon information constituted breach of s 424a of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">whether information "the reason, or a part of the reason" for affirming decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">point raised on appeal having previously been abandoned at first instance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">whether leave to rely upon proposed ground should be granted words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">"the reason, or a part of the reason"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">s 424a(1) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">application for protection visa refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">tribunal's understanding of the word 'persecution'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">s 424a of migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">whether information was 'the reason or part of the reason' for affirming the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">meaning of 'information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">identification of the 'reason' for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">an interpretative task</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">discretionary ground to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">reliance on 'country information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether tribunal can use such information in assessing credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether such information the sole basis for tribunal's findings as to credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">tribunal's duty to look at reasonably foreseeable future</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether subsequent developments can be relied on to vitiate tribunal's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether sufficient opportunity to deal with country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether tribunal biased</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application of chan v minister for immigration and ethnic affairs [1989] hca 62 ; (1989) 169 clr 379</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 65 Decision to grant or refuse to grant visa</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91R Persecution</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 414 Refugee Review Tribunal must review decisions</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 318">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 318">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 318">alleged jurisdictional error on several grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 318">no grounds made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FMCA 318">application dismissed with costs.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 426 Applicant may request Refugee Review Tribunal to call witnesses</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 430 Refugee Review Tribunal to record its decisions etc.</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 293">finance broker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 293">finance brokers control act 1975 (wa)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 293">finance broker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 293">definition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 293">whether carrying on business as such</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 293">licensing requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 293">financial advisor and arranger of major project capital</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 293">whether carrying on business as finance broker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 293">information memorandum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1993] FCA 293">to be circulated to prospective financiers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1993] FCA 293">fee for preparation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1993] FCA 293">part of agreement for services including arrangement of project finance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[1993] FCA 293">whether preparation of memorandum is service provided in capacity as a finance broker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[1993] FCA 293">whether fee recoverable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[1993] FCA 293">construction of finance brokers control act 1975</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[1993] FCA 293">protective and penal aspects</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[1993] FCA 293">preliminary issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[1993] FCA 293">illegality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[1993] FCA 293">whether within preliminary issue.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1984] FCA 232">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1984] FCA 232">leave for agent, not being a legally qualified practitioner, to appear on behalf of a company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1984] FCA 232">0.4 r.14 federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1984] FCA 232">the nature of the discretion pursuant to 0.4 r.14</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1984] FCA 232">considerations taken into account in deciding whether to exercise the discretion.  trade practices act 1974  federal court rules : 0.4 r.14  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1984] FCA 232">application for company to be represented by an agent not being a solicitor or counsel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1984] FCA 232">nature of the discretion conferred upon the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1984] FCA 232">federal court rules 1979 (cth), o. 4, r. 14. held: (per smithers and keely jj., sweeney j. not deciding) o. 4, r. 14(2) which relevantly provides that a corporation may not without the leave of the court commence or carry on any proceeding otherwise than by a solicitor, confers a discretion upon the court to grant leave, which discretion will be exercised in favour of a company where there is sufficient reason.  (2) (per smithers and keely jj., sweeney j. not deciding.) where a refusal to grant leave would leave the company unable to continue its proceedings, the loss of skilled legal assistance to the court should be a factor which carries no weight in the exercise of the discretion.  adam p. brown male fashions pty ltd v. philip morris incorporated (1981) 148 clr 170 mcgrath v. dobie [1890] viclawrp 133 ; (1890) 16 vlr 646 ; o'toole v. scott (1965) ac 939 ; hubbard association of scientologists international v. anderson [1972] vicrp 37 ; (1972) vr 340 ; tritonia ltd v. equity and law life assurance society (1943) ac 584 ; frinton and walton urban district council v. walton and district sand and mineral co. ltd (1938) 1 all er 649 ; london county council and london tramways co. (1897) 13 tlr 254 ; scriven v. jescott (leeds) ltd (1908) 53 sol. j. 101; federated engine-drivers' and firemen's association of australasia v. broken hill proprietary co. ltd [1913] hca 71 ; (1913) 16 clr 245 ; house v. the king [1936] hca 40 ; (1936) 55 clr 499. 4</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 878">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 878">application for leave pursuant to o 4 r 14(2) for applicant corporation to carry on proceeding otherwise than by a solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 878">applicant corporation seeks leave for sole director and shareholder to conduct litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 878">principles relevant to grant of leave by court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 878">capability of sole director to conduct proceedings on behalf of applicant corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 878">apparent impecuniosity of both applicant corporation and sole director</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 878">requirement for interpreter to assist sole director</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 878">substantive issues involving narrow but difficult questions of law in substantive proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 878">no legal qualifications or training of sole director</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 878">discrepancies in previous evidence as to financial position of applicant compared with current financial position</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 878">lack of explanation or evidence as to financial position of applicant corporation and sole director</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 878">no other applicant represented by counsel in proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 878">trial of substantive issues estimated to be three weeks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">citing from="[2010] FCA 878">litigation strenuously opposed by respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">citing from="[2010] FCA 878">sole director the applicant's principal witness in substantive proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">citing from="[2010] FCA 878">scandalous allegations by sole director</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 878" id="cs0">Fourth, any liberality in approach the Court might be inclined to adopt where leave is sought by a respondent (and therefore not the moving party in the litigation) is not relevant in this proceeding (contrast Super Choice Now Pty Ltd v BrisConnections Management Company Ltd [2009] FCA 1026 at [19] and Tobacco Control Coalition Inc v Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd [2000] FCA 131 at [5] ). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459G Company may apply</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459P Who may apply for order under section 459A</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>