Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">whether conduct capable of amounting to representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">whether representations continuous or made as to future matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">onus of proof in establishing 'reasonable grounds' for making representation. tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">whether a duty of care to avoid economic loss owed. damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">method of calculation in claims under trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">no error in primary judge's approach.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 954">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 954">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 954">amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 954">whether the court's power to grant leave to amend extends to amendment to plead omitted but necessary material facts after expiry of limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 954">whether costs sufficient to compensate for prejudice occasioned by amendment  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 954">fiduciary relationships</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 954">banker and customer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 954">whether bank assumed fiduciary responsibility for the customer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 954">where negotiations at arm's length</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 954">where customer had independent professional advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 387">r.j.h. darke sc/m. allars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 387">appellantself-represented</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 387">respondentsolicitors: raj lawyers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 387">appellantself-represented</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 387">respondent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 387">appeal from appeal panel of administrative decision tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 387">whether decision was interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 387">whether leave required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 387">whether notice of appeal incompetentretail lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 387">statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 387">retail leases act 1994 (nsw) ss 11 and 12</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 387">whether the term "services" under s 12 included "outgoings"retail lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 387">retail leases act 1994 (nsw) s 30</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 387">whether calculation of contribution to outgoings on proportionate basis should take into account vacancy ratesretail lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 387">whether contractual obligation to pay contributions to outgoings included requirement that amount claimed be "reasonable" procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 387">whether administrative decision tribunal erred in relying on audited statement of outgoings and cross-examination of auditor without granting party access to further documentscosts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 387">whether appeal panel of the administrative decision tribunal was a "court" for the purposes of the suitors' fund act 1951 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 276">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 276">appeals from administrative tribunals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 276">administrative decisions tribunal (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 276">appeal on questions of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 276">meaning of "no evidence".landlord and tenant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 276">retail and commercial tenancies legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 276">s34 retails leases act 1994 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 276">meaning of "genuine proposal"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 276">availability of damages for non-compliance.landlord and tenant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 276">covenants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 276">actions for breach of covenantlandlord and tenant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 276">leases and tenancy agreements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 276">construction and interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 276">implied obligations.landlord and tenant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 276">leases and tenancy agreements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 276">construction and interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 276">s133b(2) conveyancing act 1919 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 276">meaning of "improvements".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 185">constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 185">commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 185">judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 185">investiture in courts of the states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 185">whether federal jurisdiction can be vested in the administrative decisions tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 185">whether administrative decisions tribunal a court of the state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 185">court must be composed of judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 185">commonwealth constitution , s 77(iii) trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 185">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 185">whether administrative decisions tribunal has power to determine claims under the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 185">whether administrative decisions tribunal a court of the state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 185">whether federal jurisdiction can be vested in administrative decisions tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 185">commonwealth constitution , s 77(iii)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 185">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s 86(2) words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 185">"court", "court of a state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">murphy v overton investments pty ltd  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">misleading conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">lease for unit in retirement village</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">lessee liable to pay proportionate part of all expenditure incurred in operating village</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">estimate of likely expenditure given to prospective lessees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">estimate misleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">estimate did not include all expenditure being incurred in operation of the village</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">accepted that respondent engaged in conduct in contravention of pt v of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">relief available under pt vi of the trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether appellants suffered "loss or damage" within meaning of ss 82 and 87 of the trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether "loss or damage" confined to economic loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether incurring unexpected expenditure can be loss or damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether "loss or damage" is necessarily singular</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether loss or damage constituted only by any diminution in value of the lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether increased future contributions could be awarded as damages.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 524">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 524">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 524">representations as to prospective rental returns made prior to purchase</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">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="cp9.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 524">whether application to amend pleadings after evidence closed and written submissions filed should be granted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">estoppel; judgments and orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">res judicata and issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">principle in port of melbourne authority v. anshun proprietary limited</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">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="cp10.5">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="cp10.6">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="cp10.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">principles relating to the pleading of such a defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">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="cp10.9">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">whether the applicants in the later action were privies of the plaintiff in the first action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">examination of the doctrine of privity for the purposes of res judicata and issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">principle that there is no discretion in respect of an estoppel if it is actually applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">reciprocity of estoppels</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">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="cp10.14">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">application of principles of res judicata and issue estoppel to consent judgments.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.15">cited from="[1993] FCA 342">whether unverified pleadings in an action can be used as admissions.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">trade practices (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">action for damages to be commenced within three years after cause of action accrued</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">conduct inducing giving of indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">accrual of cause of action to indemnifier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">trade practices act 1974(cth), s. 82.  federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">barred cause of action introduced by amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">whether permitted by rules of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">trade practices act 1974(cth), s. 82(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">federal court of australia act 1976(cth), s. 86</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">federal court rules 1979(cth), o. 13, r. 2(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 636">limitation of actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 636">foreign currency loan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 636">alleged misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 636">alleged breach of duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 636">time at which damage is suffered.  declarations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 636">whether appropriate to answer preliminary question by making declaratory order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 636">whether decision as to limitation point will depend upon analysis of evidence at the trial.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">claims under ss. 82 and 87 of trade practices act and accrued jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">alleged representations as to availability of loan to finance purchase of farming property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">summary of principles relating to representations as to future and as to intention or state of mind in s. 52 claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">respondent company found to have contravened s. 52</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">whether managing director of company involved in contravention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">effect upon claim for damages of 3 year limitation period in s. 82(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">consideration of when cause of action arose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">observations as to when assessment of damages may be referred to registrar pursuant to federal court rules 0.38 r.1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">whether damages too remote</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">observations as to test of remoteness applicable to claim under s. 82</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">failure of applicants to reduce liabilities by sale of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">whether novus causa interveniens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">whether relief sought under s. 87(2)(d) subject to limitation period in s. 82(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.15">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">alleged negligent mis-statement and undue influence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.16">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">whether court has jurisdiction to deal with pendent common law claims where trade practices claims statute barred.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.17">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">no case submission by two of three respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.18">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">election not to call evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.19">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">circumstances in which submission may be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.20">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">whether submission may only be made if by all respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.21">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">whether distinction between submission of no case in law or on the evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.22">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">effect of election upon right to cross-examine and final address in respect of case by other respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.23">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">observations on question of non-suit in federal court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">whether publication of statements including statements of opinions made in ordinary course of publication of news (not being advertising material) can constitute misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">publication of material constituting conduct for purposes of sub-s. 52(1) of the trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">publication of incorrect information constituting misleading or deceptive conduct only if conduct contains or conveys a misrepresentation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">some articles of news more readily to be taken as statements by newspaper than others</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">disadvantages of stated case procedure.  trade practices act 1974 , ss. 4(2) , 80 , 52 (1), 53 (e), 82 , 84 85 (3), 87  federal court of australia act 1976 , sub-s. 25(6)  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">publication of statements including statements of opinion in ordinary course of publication of newspaper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">whether misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">whether statements convey misrepresentation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 4(2). held: (1) publication of statements, including statements of opinion, made in the ordinary course of the publication of a newspaper can constitute misleading and deceptive conduct within the trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 52. there is no definable boundary between conduct which is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive and material which is defamatory; defamatory material does not fall outside the operation of s. 52(1) merely by reason of its being defamatory.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1984] HCA 17">limitation of actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1984] HCA 17">personal injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1984] HCA 17">power to extend limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1984] HCA 17">material facts relating to cause of action not within applicant's means of knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1984] HCA 17">material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1984] HCA 17">fact of occurrence of negligence, nuisance or breach of duty on which cause of action founded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1984] HCA 17">occurrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1984] HCA 17">whether act or omission constituting tort or legal concept or cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1984] HCA 17">limitation act 1969 (n.s.w.), ss. 57 , 58 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1983] FCA 269">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1983] FCA 269">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1983] FCA 269">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1983] FCA 269">whether representations or statements as to future conduct, not misleading or deceptive at the time of making, can be misleading or deceptive on the failure of future events coming to pass</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1983] FCA 269">time that nature of representation is to be determined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1983] FCA 269">whether s. 52 may be breached notwithstanding the absence of an intent to mislead or deceive on the part of contravenor.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1983] FCA 269">strike out application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1983] FCA 269">principles to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1983] FCA 269">application granted.  trade practices act 1974 , s. 52  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1983] FCA 269">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1983] FCA 269">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1983] FCA 269">whether representations or statements as to future conduct, not misleading or deceptive at time of making can be misleading or deceptive on the failure of future events coming to pass</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[1983] FCA 269">time that nature of representation is to be determined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[1983] FCA 269">whether misleading or deceptive conduct notwithstanding absence of intent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">cited from="[1983] FCA 269">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 52.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.15">cited from="[1983] FCA 269">application to strike out statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.16">cited from="[1983] FCA 269">statement of claim clearly untenable. the applicant alleged that the respondent had engaged in conduct that contravened s. 52 of the trade practices act 1974 and sought damages pursuant to s. 82 and orders pursuant to s. 87 of the act. the applicant's case rested upon the proposition that a contravention of s. 52 of the act may occur merely if a representation by the respondent as to future conduct does not come to pass, notwithstanding that, at the time it made the representation, the respondent may have believed that it would come to pass or was not recklessly indifferent as to what it said. by motion the respondent sought to strike out the statement of claim of the applicant as failing to disclose a cause of action.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">hire of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">contractual indemnity by hirer against loss caused to owner from use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">action for damages against hirer and owner arising out of use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">notices of contribution between hirer and owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">claim of contribution by owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">apportionment of liability between defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">subsequent action by owner for indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">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="cp17.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">wrongs act 1958 (vict.) s. 24 (1) (c).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[1957] HCA 83">limitation of actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[1957] HCA 83">statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[1957] HCA 83">provision that actions which might formerly have been brought in the form of action called action on the case or which would formerly have been brought in the form of action called trespass on the case should, "save as otherwise provided in this act" be commenced within six years of accrual of cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[1957] HCA 83">provision in following section that actions for trespass to the person should be commenced within three years of date of accrual</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[1957] HCA 83">action for damages for personal injuries sustained by being struck in street by vehicle driven by defendant in negligent manner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[1957] HCA 83">period of limitation applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[1957] HCA 83">limitation of actions act 1936-1948 (no. 2268 of 1936</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">cited from="[1957] HCA 83">no. 45 of 1948) (s.a.), ss. 35, 36.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 442">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 442">whether representations as to the achievable gross realisation upon the development of land were misleading or deceptive or were likely to mislead or deceive contrary to s 52 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 442">whether such representations were false or misleading concerning the price payable for land contrary to s 53a of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 442">claim for indemnity costs in circumstances in which the first respondent continued to maintain that their representation as to the achievable gross realisation was justified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 442">indemnity costs awarded against the first respondent from the period commencing when the first respondent became aware that its defence was unsupportable  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 442">security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 442">claim for repayment of amount paid for security of costs for hearing on separate questions of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 442">findings in favour of applicants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">citing from="[2011] FCA 442">order that the security be repaid to the applicants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 438">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 438">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 438">whether representations made by landlord in the course of building renovations were misleading or deceptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 438">representations as to future conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1429">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1429">leave to serve originating process overseas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1429">need for pleadings to be further amended</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1429">question as to jurisdiction of court to entertain all claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1429">discretion to refuse leave   contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1429">implied term of good faith</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 442" id="cs0">Colliers submits there has been debate in the Court concerning the effect of s 51A of the Act and upon the question whether the onus of showing that there were reasonable grounds for representation concerning future matters remains with the representor or whether, if evidence is produced to the contrary, the deeming provision in s 51A of the TPA does not operate: see Skiwing Pty Ltd t/as Cafe Tiffany's v Trust Co of Australia Ltd (Stockland Property Management Ltd) [2009] FCA 347 ; (2009) 255 ALR 339 ; McGrath and Another v Australian Naturalcare Products Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 2 ; [2008] FCAFC 2 ; (2008) 165 FCR 230 at [162] - [194]. With regard to the latter authority, Colliers submits that the observations of Allsop J (at [192]) suggest that s 51A of the TPA raised only an initial onus requiring the provision of some evidence that there were reasonable grounds for making a representation and that Emmett J at [44] expressed a similar opinion. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 438" id="cs1">The present proceedings arise from claims by Skiwing that Stockland, by its conduct in making a number of representations (which can be categorised into three groups) upon which Skiwing relied to its detriment, engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ("the TP Act "). Skiwing sought damages under s 82 of the TP Act . I described the three groups of representations in an earlier interlocutory judgment ( Skiwing Pty Limited trading as Caf Tiffany's v Trust Company of Australia Ltd (Stockland Property Management Ltd) [2009] FCA 347) in the following way (at [6]---[9]): </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] HCATrans 92" id="cs2">That fits in or coheres with the principle that has found expression in this Court since Walton v Gardiner [1993] HCA 77 ; (1993) 177 CLR 378 , since Batistatos v Roads  Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2006] HCA 27 ; (2006) 226 CLR 256 , R v Edwards [2009] FCA 347 ; (2009) 255 ALR 339 , and the Jeffery  Katauskas Case that I have just referred to, in essence, the position since Walton wherein this Court has adopted Lord Diplock's test in the case of Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1981] UKHL 13 ; [1982] AC 529 at 536 noted as being the correct test and that is the test that finds expression in our - - -

 GUMMOW J: The phrases "exceptional case" and "rare case" in Cooney were used in the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal, I think it then was - in Cooney (1987) 31 A Crim R 256 , 263 and 264 talking about misconduct by the prosecuting authority where there is a constitutional abuse, if you like, by the other branch of government.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1429" id="cs3">That which may also be presently left to one side is whether each of the representations which the Applicant presently maintains are representations in respect " to any future matter " truly falls within that description. Of present relevance is the importance assumed by s 51A in casting the " burden of proof " upon the Respondents. Different views have also been expressed as to the manner of operation of s 51A and the nature of the evidence to be adduced by a respondent before the " deeming " effect of s 51A ceases to operate: McGrath v Australian Naturalcare Products Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 2 , 165 FCR 230 ; Skiwing Pty Ltd t/as Caf Tiffany's v Trust Co of Australia Ltd (Stockland Property Management Ltd) [2009] FCA 347 at [21] to [24] [2009] FCA 347 ; [2009] FCA 347 ; , 255 ALR 339 at 343 to 344 per Buchanan J. But all of these matters may be left to be resolved at a later date. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] VCC 1001" id="cs4"/>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 59 Rules of Court</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 126">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 126">goods and services tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 126">apportionment of credits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 126">whether full input tax credits available to taxpayer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 126">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 126">taxpayer acquired services in a taxable supply by way of a feasibility study as to whether it should acquire debts and recover them</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 126">taxpayer carrying on enterprise of acquiring debts and recovering them, acquisition of debts a financial supply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 126">taxpayer also acquired services relating to recovery of debts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 126">whether input credits disallowed as relating to the making of a financial supply (the acquisition of the debts) which would be input taxed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 126">whether credits disallowed where acquisition of recovery services related to the financial supply (the acquisition of the debts) a new tax system (goods and services tax) act 1999 (cth), ss 11 -15(2)(a), 11 -5, 11 -20, div 132 a new tax system (goods and services tax) regulations 1999 (cth), regs 70-5.02, 40-5.09</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 40">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 40">recovery of tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 40">statutory garnishee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 40">notice to taxpayer's bank</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 40">term deposits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 40">terms unexpired</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 40">notice served before tax payable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 40">when tax "due"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 40">debts purportedly assigned before tax payable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 40">whether money due or accruing due to taxpayer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 40">whether service of notice prevents such assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 40">"equities"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1981] HCA 40">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), s. 218(1)(a)(i).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1949] HCA 15">income tax (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1949] HCA 15">assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1949] HCA 15">deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1949] HCA 15">"losses and outgoings to the extent to which they are incurred in gaining or producing the assessable income, or are necessarily incurred in carrying on a business for the purpose of gaining or producing such income"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1949] HCA 15">apportionment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1949] HCA 15">tin-mining company registered in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1949] HCA 15">mining operations in siam prior to war</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1949] HCA 15">income therefrom exempt from federal income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1949] HCA 15">suspension of operations in siam during war</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1949] HCA 15">no income thereafter derived by company except small amount from investments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1949] HCA 15">maintenance of office and central administration in melbourne</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1949] HCA 15">expenses incidental thereto</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1949] HCA 15">income tax assessment act 1936-1944 (no. 27 of 1936</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1949] HCA 15">no. 28 of 1944), ss. 23 (q), 51 (1).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l1">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 15AA Regard to be had to purpose or object of Act</title>
<title id="l2">A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX) ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l3">A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX TRANSITION) ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l4">A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX TRANSITION) ACT 1999 - SECT 1 Short title [see Note 1]</title>
<title id="l5">A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX TRANSITION) ACT 1999 - SECT 5 Definitions</title>
<title id="l6">A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX TRANSITION) ACT 1999 - SECT 7 Start of GST</title>
<title id="l7">A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX TRANSITION) ACT 1999 - SECT 9 GST registration before 1 July 2000</title>
<title id="l8">A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX TRANSITION) ACT 1999 - SECT 10 Invoice or consideration before 1 July 2000</title>
<title id="l9">A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX TRANSITION) ACT 1999 - SECT 11 Supply of rights exercisable on or after 1 July 2000</title>
<title id="l10">A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX TRANSITION) ACT 1999 - SECT 15 Funeral agreements</title>
<title id="l11">A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX TRANSITION) ACT 1999 - SECT 25 Regulations</title>
<title id="l12">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l13">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l14">LIFE INSURANCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l15">LIFE INSURANCE ACT 1995 - SECT 9 Life policy</title>
<title id="l16">LIFE INSURANCE ACT 1995 - SECT 11 Life insurance business</title>
<title id="l17">LIFE INSURANCE ACT 1995 - SECT 12A Declarations that insurance or annuity business is life insurance business</title>
<title id="l18">LIFE INSURANCE ACT 1995 - SECT 14 Investment account benefits, investment-linked benefits</title>
<title id="l19">LIFE INSURANCE ACT 1995 - SECT 15 Participating, non-participating benefits</title>
<title id="l20">LIFE INSURANCE ACT 1995 - SECT 38 Expenditure and application of statutory fund</title>
<title id="l21">LIFE INSURANCE ACT 1995 - SECT 40 Mortgages etc. of assets</title>
<title id="l22">LIFE INSURANCE ACT 1995 - SECT 43 Investment of statutory funds</title>
<title id="l23">LIFE INSURANCE ACT 1995 - SECT 45 Transfer of assets between funds</title>
<title id="l24">LIFE INSURANCE ACT 1995 - SECT 48 Duty of directors in relation to statutory funds</title>
<title id="l25">LIFE INSURANCE ACT 1995 - SECT 55 Additional requirements for transfer of policies between statutory funds by endorsement</title>
<title id="l26">LIFE INSURANCE ACT 1995 - SECT 60 Basis of allocation of operating profit etc.</title>
<title id="l27">RETIREMENT SAVINGS ACCOUNTS ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l28">SUPERANNUATION INDUSTRY (SUPERVISION) ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l29">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l30">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZY Commissioner to decide taxation objections</title>
<title id="l31">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZYA Person may require Commissioner to make an objection decision</title>
<title id="l32">A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX) REGULATIONS 1999 </title>
<title id="l33">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">infringement proceedings pursuant to s 120 patents act 1990 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">where applicants proprietors of patent for membranous termite barrier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">where first and second respondents manufactured, sold, installed, offered for sale or installation, advertised, promoted and marketed termite barrier system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">where third respondents authorised, procured and directed such conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">whether permissible to construe independent claims in patent by reference to subsequent dependent claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">whether respondents infringed applicant's patent. held: infringement turns on a comparison between the applicants' patent and respondents' product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">subsequent dependent claim no assistance in interpretation of independent claims in circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">respondents' product contains all integers in claims of applicants' patent alleged to be infringed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">respondents infringed applicants' patent. intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">counter-claim for revocation of patent pursuant to s 121 patents act 1990 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">where applicants proprietor of patent for membranous termite barrier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">where combination patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">where prior art information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">whether invention embodied in patent a patentable invention within s 18 patents act 1990 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">whether prior art anticipates invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">whether invention lacks novelty within s 7(1) patents act 1990 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">whether prior patents or patent applications part of common general knowledge within s 7(2) patents act 1990 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">whether invention was obvious within s 7(2) patents act 1990 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">whether invention lacks inventive step within s 7(2) patents act 1990 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">whether invention is useful within s 18(1)(c) patents act 1990 (cth). held: no prior art information anticipated invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">invention taken to be novel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">evidence does not establish prior patents and patent applications part of common general knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">invention not obvious</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">invention taken to involve inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">invention embodied in patent properly construed useful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.28">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">invention embodied in patent a patentable invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.29">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">patent valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.30">cited from="[2007] FCA 1493">counter-claim dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 996">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 996">amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 996">obviousness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 996">novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 996">post-grant re-examination by commissioner of patents pursuant to request made by third party under s 97(2) of the patents act 1990 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 996">commissioner required by s 98 to report on whether invention not novel and whether invention did not involve inventive step, when compared with prior art base as it existed before priority date, excluding information made publicly available only through the doing of an act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 996">third party requesting re-examination by commissioner required by reg 9.2 of patents regulations 1991 (cth) to identify documents on basis of which third party asserts any claim not novel or does not involve inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 996">how test of obviousness to be applied on ex parte re-examination under s 97(2), without evidence as to whether person skilled in the relevant art would have ascertained, understood and regarded as relevant the information in the documents identified by the third party in its request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 996">'onus'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 996">whether evidence required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 996">nature of re-examination under s 97(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 996">whether amendment is part of re-examination process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 996">whether decision on application for leave to amend must be made before decision to revoke</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2005] FCA 996">whether commissioner at liberty simply to decide to revoke on assumption specification amended as requested</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2005] FCA 996">tests for allowable amendments.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] APO 18" id="cs0">In this regard the considerations seem to be not unlike those that apply where the Court has been requested to exercise its discretion to direct re-examination under s97(3). These have been given judicial consideration including most recently in VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd v B.M.W Plastics Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 593 where Justice Kenny found at [16]:

"I doubt that the provision of a report by the Commissioner after re-examination would reduce the cost of this proceeding and expedite its determination. First, the Commissioner's report after re-examination is not binding on the Court. In the absence of an undertaking of the kind sought by B.M.W. Generally the Commissioner only re-examines an application where she becomes aware of information on which she is satisfied that the patent granted would be clearly invalid ( Commissioner of Patents v Emperor Sports Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 996). Normally this occurs in circumstances where, save the re-examination action by the Commissioner, grant of a potentially invalid patent will follow as a matter of course. In this light, re-examination in the context of an existing opposition is clearly a special case and the considerations are not unlike those that apply where the Court has been requested to exercise its discretion to direct re-examination under s97(3) as in VIP plastic Packaging Pty Ltd v B.M.W Plastics Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 593. On this basis it is apparent that in the circumstances the public interest predominantly lies in the expeditious determination of the opposition on its merits. Re-examination may assist in resolving or reducing the cost of opposition and there is some prospect of this, for example, where the parties agree that re-examination occur.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">PATENTS ACT 1990 </title>
<title id="l1">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 7 Novelty and inventive step</title>
<title id="l2">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 97 Re-examination of complete specifications</title>
<title id="l3">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 98 Report on re-examination</title>
<title id="l4">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 99 Statement by applicant or patentee</title>
<title id="l5">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 100 Copies of report to be given to court</title>
<title id="l6">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 101 Revocation of patent--re-examination after grant</title>
<title id="l7">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 138 Revocation of patents in other circumstances</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 42B Power of Tribunal where a proceeding is frivolous or vexatious</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l4">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 94 Qualification for disability support pension</title>
<title id="l5">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 1218AA Unlimited portability period for disability support pension</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 3">pasini v united mexican states  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 3">judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 3">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 3">jurisdiction of federal court to review order by magistrate that applicant, being eligible for surrender to extradition country, be committed to prison</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 3">provision requiring federal court to have regard only to the material before the magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 3">whether provision denies to the federal court power to receive evidence led to show that proceeding before it was an abuse of its process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 3">whether consistent with the exercise of the judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 3">whether provision enabling curial review of administrative function amounts to purported conferral of non-judicial power.  extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 3">judicial review by federal court of magistrate's order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 3">provision requiring federal court to have regard only to material before the magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 3">whether provision invalid under the constitution as inconsistent with the exercise of federal power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 3">whether provision invalid as conferral of non-judicial power to participate in administrative function.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">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="cp2.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 165">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 165">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 165">in primary proceeding, applicant challenged decision of minister to issue notice of receipt of extradition request in relation to applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 165">primary judge dismissed that application summarily as an abuse of process on ground that applicant had previously failed up to appellate level in challenge to determination by magistrate that applicant was eligible for surrender and to issue by magistrate of warrant for applicant's imprisonment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 165">it was a condition of magistrate's jurisdiction that minister had issued a notice of receipt of extradition request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 165">discussion of criterion for summary dismissal and criterion for final dismissal in the case of abuse of process. practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 165">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 165">in primary proceeding, applicant challenged decision of minister to issue notice of receipt of extradition request in relation to applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 165">primary judge dismissed that application summarily as an abuse of process on ground that applicant had previously failed up to appellate level in challenge to determination by magistrate that applicant was eligible for surrender and to issue by magistrate of warrant for applicant's imprisonment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 165">it was a condition of magistrate's jurisdiction that minister had issued a notice of receipt of extradition request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 165">discussion of criterion for summary dismissal and criterion for final dismissal in the case of abuse of process.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 2091">extradition act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 2091">issue of notice under s 16 by attorney-general</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 2091">magistrate's decision under s 19(9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 2091">independent administrative functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 2091">nature of section 21 review by federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 2091">nature of 'review'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 2091">subsequent challenge to s 16 notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 2091">estoppel/abuse of process</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 165" id="cs0">24 On 9 May 2006, Moore J of this Court dismissed that proceeding: see Brock v United States of America [2006] FCA 496. At that hearing, Mr Brock was represented by counsel who appeared pro bono .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 2091" id="cs1">9 The magistrate's order under s 19(9) of the 1988 Act was in turn the subject of further proceedings commenced in this Court under s 21 of that Act on 8 December 2005. Those proceedings were dismissed on 9 May 2006: Brock v United States of America [2006] FCA 496. The Applicant was there represented by counsel appearing pro bono .</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l2">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 3 Principal objects of Act</title>
<title id="l3">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 12 Provisional arrest warrants</title>
<title id="l4">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 15 Remand</title>
<title id="l5">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 16 Notice by Attorney-General</title>
<title id="l6">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 19 Determination of eligibility for surrender</title>
<title id="l7">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 21 Review of magistrate's order</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">LIFE INSURANCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">LIFE INSURANCE ACT 1995 - SECT 16C What is a friendly society?</title>
<title id="l2">LIFE INSURANCE ACT 1995 - SECT 16L Approval of benefit fund rules</title>
<title id="l3">LIFE INSURANCE ACT 1995 - SECT 16ZB Certain friendly societies may continue to carry on health insurance business--modified operation of this Act</title>
<title id="l4">LIFE INSURANCE ACT 1995 - SECT 189 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l5">LIFE INSURANCE ACT 1995 - SECT 194 Confirmation of scheme</title>
<title id="l6">LIFE INSURANCE ACT 1995 - SECT 253 Regulations</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l8">LIFE INSURANCE REGULATIONS 1995 </title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 1084">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 1084">applicant company conducts tours in remote western australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 1084">applicant part of tourism business jointly operated by applicant's sole director and the second respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 1084">applicant seeks order for delivery of booking records allegedly taken by respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 1084">whether applicant entitled to relief sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 1084">standard of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 1084">causes of action raised by applicant after judgment reserved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">standing to challenge costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">amount of payment due under contract in excess of offer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">whether claims unreasonable and unsupported by evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">whether costs proportionate to importance and complexity of case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">[icivil procedure act/i] 2005 (nsw), s 60evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">conference of experts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">involvement of party in conference</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">supply to experts of information not agreed in advanceprocedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">civil proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">need to demonstrate loss of opportunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">onus on complainant to establish factsprocedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">civil proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">trial judge's reliance on demeanour of party in courtroom</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">no notice to parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">whether legal representatives in position to observe party's behaviour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">whether refusal to grant adjournment constituted procedural unfairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">whether alleged unfairness affected outcome</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">whether extent of impact can be assessed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">comparison between failure to accord procedural fairness in administrative law, in civil proceedings and in criminal proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 353">degrees of unfairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 54">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 54">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 54">award of indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 54">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1995] FCA 1459">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1995] FCA 1459">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1995] FCA 1459">application by successful respondents to appeal against interlocutory order for an order that their costs of the appeal be paid forthwith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1995] FCA 1459">principal proceedings not expected to be finally resolved for a substantial period of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1995] FCA 1459">whether order should be made that costs be paid forthwith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1995] FCA 1459">leave to tax costs forthwith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1995] FCA 1459">no question of principle.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">application that respondent's costs of certain issues be paid on indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">discussion of applicable principles.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">magistrates' courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">discretion to award costs to defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">magistrates (summary proceedings) act 1975 (vict.), s.97(b).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 3 Extension to Territories</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1589">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1589">trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1589">remuneration and costs to which trustee lawfully entitled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1589">work undertaken post-annulment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1589">taxation of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1589">impact of consent orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1589">enforcement of charge over property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1589">court ordered sale of property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1589">held: trustee to be awarded amount for remuneration, costs, charges and expenses to which legally entitled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 140">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 140">entitlements of trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 140">certificates of taxation relating to remuneration, costs, charges and expenses claimed by former trustee set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 140">where work undertaken after bankruptcy annulled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 140">where remuneration and costs claimed in relation to litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 140">where primary judge found litigation undertaken for the former trustee's own benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 140">whether litigation undertaken for former trustee's own benefit was not for the purpose of the administration of the estate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1572">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1572">trustee's entitlement to remuneration and costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1572">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1572">appeals from decision of taxing officer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1572">where work undertaken post-annulment of bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1572">where work undertaken in relation to taxation of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1572">where work undertaken in relation to litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1572">where work performed by persons other than trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1572">whether taxing officer validly appointed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1572">whether form of bills of costs complied with bankruptcy regulations 1996 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 69">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 69">remuneration of trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 69">power of creditors to fix trustee's remuneration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 69">whether subject to election by trustee to be remunerated at the prescribed rate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1682">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1682">external administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1682">administrators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1682">remuneration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1682">resolution of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1682">validity of resolution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1682">failure to fix</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1682">factors to be taken into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">objection to jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">bankrupt applies for order compelling trustee in bankruptcy to call meeting of creditors to consider proposal by bankrupt under s 73 of the bankruptcy act 1966 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">if proposal accepted by special resolution of creditors, bankruptcy would be annulled by operation of s 74(5) of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">question of protection of trustee's entitlement to remuneration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">question of court's power under s 74(6) to impose terms and conditions on reverter of title of 'property of the bankrupt' to bankrupt on annulment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">whether court could make part of that property subject to a charge in favour of trustee as security for his remuneration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">bankrupt and trustee compromise proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">as part of compromise bankrupt charges a particular property in favour of trustee as security for trustee's entitlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">meeting called, creditors pass special resolution accepting proposal, bankruptcy annulled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">subsequent disputes between former bankrupt and former trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">former trustee applies by motion in the proceeding for appointment of trustee for sale of the property charged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">whether court has jurisdiction to enforce the charge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">whether it can do so by appointing trustee for sale. bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">objection to jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">bankrupt applies for order compelling trustee in bankruptcy to call meeting of creditors to consider proposal by bankrupt under s 73 of the bankruptcy act 1966 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">if proposal accepted by special resolution of creditors, bankruptcy would be annulled by operation of s 74(5) of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">question of protection of trustee's entitlement to remuneration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">question of court's power under s 74(6) to impose terms and conditions on reverter of title of 'property of the bankrupt' to bankrupt on annulment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">whether court could make part of that property subject to a charge in favour of trustee as security for his remuneration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">bankrupt and trustee compromise proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">as part of compromise bankrupt charges a particular property in favour of trustee as security for trustee's entitlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">meeting called, creditors pass special resolution accepting proposal, bankruptcy annulled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">subsequent disputes between former bankrupt and former trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.24">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">former trustee applies by motion in the proceeding for appointment of trustee for sale of the property charged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.25">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">whether court has jurisdiction to enforce the charge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.26">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">whether it can do so by appointing trustee for sale. federal courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.27">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">objection to jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.28">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">bankrupt applies for order compelling trustee in bankruptcy to call meeting of creditors to consider proposal by bankrupt under s 73 of the bankruptcy act 1966 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.29">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">if proposal accepted by special resolution of creditors, bankruptcy would be annulled by operation of s 74(5) of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.30">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">question of protection of trustee's entitlement to remuneration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.31">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">question of court's power under s 74(6) to impose terms and conditions on reverter of title of 'property of the bankrupt' to bankrupt on annulment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.32">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">whether court could make part of that property subject to a charge in favour of trustee as security for his remuneration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.33">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">bankrupt and trustee compromise proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.34">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">as part of compromise bankrupt charges a particular property in favour of trustee as security for trustee's entitlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.35">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">meeting called, creditors pass special resolution accepting proposal, bankruptcy annulled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.36">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">subsequent disputes between former bankrupt and former trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.37">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">former trustee applies by motion in the proceeding for appointment of trustee for sale of the property charged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.38">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">whether court has jurisdiction to enforce the charge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.39">cited from="[2004] FCA 280">whether it can do so by appointing trustee for sale.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 509">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 509">registration as trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 509">applicant employed by firm of accountants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 509">court to be satisfied that arrangements as to fees and access to employer's facilities ensure independence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 509">s. 165(1)(b) of bankruptcy act 1966 not necessarily infringed where trustee's fees paid over to employer.  bankruptcy act 1966 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 509">ss. 155 and 165</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1408">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1408">residual issues left unresolved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1408">relief not to confer a windfall</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1408">calculation of interest for a part of a period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1408">fixed costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1408">declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 866">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 866">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 866">indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 866">interest up to judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 866">inchoate cause of action  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 866">trustee's right to remuneration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 866">work reasonably undertaken</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 866">rule in cherry v boultbee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 866">the decision in baldry v jackson</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1086">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1086">order that an inquiry be conducted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1086">objection to certificate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1086">nature of the hearing to be undertaken by the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1387">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1387">applications to re-open case after reasons for decision given and prior to entry of orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1387">whether re-opening in the interests of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1387">importance of finality of litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1387">mere discontent with reasons insufficient to justify re-opening</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1387">not clear that court proceeded on a misapprehension as to the facts or law</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1408" id="cs0">On behalf of Dr Wenkart it is now contended in his written submissions that the " facts which had been assumed at the time of the 2006 Full Court Proceedings were not those which came to be actually found by Branson J in 2008 ". In Wenkart v Pantzer [2008] FCA 478 , Her Honour relevantly found as follows:

 [88] As I have already mentioned, on 24 April 2002 (ie earlier than the filing of the cross-claim) Hunt  Hunt formally requested that the costs of Cutler Hughes  Harris be taxed and Ms Sexton was appointed Taxing Officer on 6 August 2002. However, as at 31 October 2003 Ms Sexton had not completed her taxation. For the reasons given above, it seems to me that on 21 October 2003, if not before, Mr Pantzer effectively conceded that he had filed his cross-claim before the quantum of the amount of the costs to which he was legally entitled from Dr Wenkart in respect of the costs of Cutler Hughes  Harris had been determined.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 866" id="cs1">The amounts paid during bankruptcy, namely this amount of $430,744.30, may be traced in part to the judgment of Her Honour Justice Branson delivered on 11 April 2008: Wenkart v Pantzer [2008] FCA 478 , 6 ABC(NS) 37. Her Honour there reviewed the resolutions which had been passed and a schedule prepared by Mr Pantzer and concluded:

 [32] I conclude that on the proper construction of the above resolution, the creditors purportedly approved Mr Pantzer's remuneration as follows:
 (a) $ 60,744.70 for the period from 28 October --- 10 December 1999;
 (b) $ 80,000 for future remuneration from 13 December 1999;
 (c) $ 11,811.40 for the period from 11 March --- 28 March 2000;
 (d) $ 68,188.60 for future remuneration from 29 March 2000; and
 (e) $ 105,000.00 in accordance with para (a)(I) of the s 73 proposal. These amounts are reflected in the first eleven payment items shown on Mr Pantzer's schedule ...

These sums total $325,744.70. Together with the sum of $105,000 paid to Cutler Hughes and Harris on 15 March 2002, the total is $430,744.70. Notwithstanding this discrepancy, reliance is placed upon the sum as claimed as set forth in the Certificate.  Given the conclusion of Branson J in Wenkart v Pantzer [2008] FCA 478 , and the subsequent comments made in Wenkart v Pantzer [2009] FCA 1086 , it is simply said that no further claim for relief may now be advanced.  And, as at 31 October 2002, Branson J has concluded that Mr Pantzer was not then entitled to " orders in aid " of the order made on 11 March 2002: Wenkart v Pantzer [2008] FCA 478 at [91] .  In the present proceeding, Her Honour Justice Branson clearly regarded the Notice of Motion as filed by Mr Pantzer on 31 October 2002 as " premature ". Given the construction of Orders 1 and 2 as made on 11 March 2002, and the subsequent certification of the date after which " 28 days had passed ", that conclusion of Her Honour was clearly correct. Her Honour was also very conscious of the " regrettably long and complex history of this matter ": [2008] FCA 478 at 92, 6 ABC(NS) 37 at 60.  Notwithstanding these conclusions of the Full Court, it is nevertheless now said on behalf of Dr Wenkart that: the decision of the Full Court preceded the judgment of Branson J on 11 April 2008 ( Wenkart v Pantzer [2008] FCA 478) ; there is now " an extant finding that Mr Pantzer had no claim against Dr. Wenkart when he commenced these proceedings, which were always doomed to ultimate failure "; Mr Pantzer has acknowledged in a letter dated 13 March 2003 to the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia that " I was also initially advised by my solicitors that I ought to wait until taxation was completed before making application to the court to enforce the security pursuant to the consent orders "; and " these proceedings were premature, at all times at least until 10 January 2005 (when Mr Pantzer's 'lawful entitlements' --- consisting of remuneration and costs incurred in the conduct of these proceedings --- first exceeded funds received by him at which point only did he (arguably) have a claim capable of enforcement) ". The date of 10 January 2005, it is recalled, was that fixed by the Deputy District Registrar.  But the conclusion of Her Honour, with respect, says nothing as to either: the entitlement of Mr Pantzer to claim at some time in the future amounts for costs, expenses and remuneration; or the reasonableness of either filing the Notice of Motion on 31 October 2002 or his subsequent efforts to recover the amounts to which he claimed he has a lawful entitlement.
Indeed, it was presumably the very ability of Mr Pantzer to make such claims that may have led Her Honour not to simply dismiss the " Cross-Claim " --- as was the order previously sought by Dr Wenkart: [2008] FCA 478 at [92] .  If any question as to the date upon which Mr Pantzer may have become " lawfully entitled " is presently left to one side, it is clear that the orders made by Beaumont J embraced: not only the amounts to which Mr Pantzer was lawfully entitled as at 11 March 2002
but also
 those amounts to which he " may become lawfully entitled " thereafter. That construction of the orders, it is considered:
 flows naturally from the terms of Order 1 itself; is not contrary to any conclusion previously expressed by any other Judge of this Court; and is supported by the construction given to the orders when the matter came before the Full Court in Pantzer v Wenkart [2006] FCAFC 140 at [44] , [2006] FCAFC 140 ; 153 FCR 466 at 477. So much was accepted by Senior Counsel on behalf of Dr Wenkart during the course of oral submissions. That concession was properly made. The question as to when Mr Pantzer became " lawfully entitled " was resolved by Branson J as being " an agreement to pay within 28 days of the determination of the quantum of 'the same' ": Wenkart v Pantzer [2008] FCA 478 at [85] , 6 ABC(NS) 37 at 58 to 59.  Notwithstanding the order made by Branson J in September 2008 for such an inquiry to be conducted, and the conclusion expressed in the decision giving effect to the inquiry thereafter conducted, it must further be recalled that the September 2008 orders were preceded by Her Honour's decision in April 2008 wherein Her Honour: concluded that as at 31 October 2002 Mr Pantzer was not entitled to " orders in aid " of the 11 March 2002 consent orders made by Beaumont J; declined to dismiss the cross-claim, as Her Honour was then invited to do by Dr Wenkart as " Mr Pantzer could simply institute a fresh application seeking to enforce the charge over the Paddington property " ([2008] FCA 478 at [92]); and proposed the ordering of the inquiry " as a first step " in the " making of appropriate costs orders " to deal with the premature filing of the cross-claim.
That was the purpose to be served by later ordering the inquiry to be held. It is also to be recalled that in her subsequent decision in September 2008, Branson J:
 expressed a belief that Dr Wenkart accepted that in determining the cross-claim filed by Mr Pantzer " the Court could take into account amounts ... after the date on which the cross-claim was filed " ([2008] FCA 1387 at [18]); and again adverted to her earlier disinclination to simply dismiss the cross-claim because such a course would be " likely to result in the institution of yet further litigation between the parties " and because this " did not seem ... to be in the public interest or in the interests of the parties, particularly having regard to the Court's wide powers to formulate orders for costs ".  But the difficulty then confronting Mr Pantzer in recovering the amount claimed of $193,531.18 is the fact that as at 31 October 2002 he was not then entitled to " orders in aid " of the order made on 11 March 2002. So much was the conclusion of Branson J in her April 2008 judgment: Wenkart v Pantzer [2008] FCA 478 , 6 ABC(NS) 37. Her Honour there relevantly concluded:

 Position as at 31 October 2002

 [84] ... the significance of the date 31 October 2002 is that it is the date of the filing of Mr Pantzer's deemed cross-claim seeking "an order in aid of [the Court's] order made on 11 March 2002 by appointing Warren Pantzer as Trustee for Sale of the [Paddington property]" (see [2007] FCA 1589 at [17] ).

 [85] ...[I]t is, I think, uncontroversial that Dr Wenkart's agreements to pay the remuneration, costs, charges and expenses to which Mr Pantzer is "lawfully entitled" from him is an agreement to pay within 28 days of the determination of the quantum of "the same".</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1086" id="cs2">As concluded by Branson J in her reasons for decision in April 2008 ( Wenkart v Pantzer [2008] FCA 478):

 [91] I conclude that as at the date that the cross-claim was filed, Mr Pantzer, in his capacity as trustee of Dr Wenkart's bankrupt estate, had received a larger amount by way of receipts than the determined quantum of the remuneration, costs, charges and expenses to which he was lawfully entitled. Mr Pantzer has therefore failed to demonstrate that, as at the date of the filing of his cross-claim, he was entitled to "orders in aid" of the consent orders made on 11 March 2002.

 [92] Nonetheless, I do not accept the submission of Dr Wenkart that it would be appropriate simply to dismiss the cross-claim with costs. This table, it is considered, correctly sets forth as the starting point the sum of $769,191.66. Reference had been made by Branson J to an alternative figure of $797,000: [2008] FCA 478 at [6] . But this alternative figure was apparently an error attributable to submissions by Senior Counsel previously appearing for Dr Wenkart. Nothing turns on this error, it being accepted by both Counsel that the correct sum is that identified in the Certificate . The sum of $769,191.66 was the sum identified by Her Honour when making the order that an " inquiry " be undertaken. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1387" id="cs3">As I noted in Wenkart v Pantzer [2008] FCA 478 at [1] - [8], no agreement was reached between the parties as to the orders appropriate to be made to give effect to my reasons for judgment of 16 October 2007. Indeed, after hearing further from the parties, I accepted that I had not dealt with all outstanding issues between the parties. Those outstanding issues were dealt with in Wenkart v Pantzer [2008] FCA 478. When publishing those reasons for judgment I stood the proceeding over to a date to be fixed for the purpose of the making of orders giving effect to the reasons, including orders as to costs. 3 Orders giving effect to my reasons for judgment have still not been made. These reasons for judgment should be read together with my earlier reasons for judgment. 2 The history and subject matter of this proceeding is summarised in Wenkart v Pantzer [2007] FCA 1589 at [2] - [35]. As I noted in Wenkart v Pantzer [2008] FCA 478 at [1] - [8], no agreement was reached between the parties as to the orders appropriate to be made to give effect to my reasons for judgment of 16 October 2007. Indeed, after hearing further from the parties, I accepted that I had not dealt with all outstanding issues between the parties. Those outstanding issues were dealt with in Wenkart v Pantzer [2008] FCA 478.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 64U Remuneration of registered trustee [see Table B]</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 73 Composition or arrangement [see Table B]</title>
<title id="l3">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 74 Annulment of bankruptcy [see Table B]</title>
<title id="l4">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 161B Trustee's remuneration--minimum entitlement [see Table B]</title>
<title id="l5">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 162 Trustee's remuneration--general [see Table B]</title>
<title id="l6">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 165 Trustee not to accept extra benefit etc.</title>
<title id="l7">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 306 Formal defect not to invalidate proceedings</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l9">BANKRUPTCY REGULATIONS 1996 </title>
<title id="l10">BANKRUPTCY REGULATIONS 1996 - REG 8.09 Circumstances in which trustee may apply to Inspector-General to decide remuneration</title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>