Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1201">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1201">whether application for extension of time for compliance with statutory demand is out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1201">meaning of "finally determined or otherwise disposed of"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1201">irrelevant that appeal available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 877">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 877">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 877">statutory demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 877">order by master that amount of demand be reduced by certain offsetting claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 877">company initiates appeal on basis that certain further offsetting claims should have been recognised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 877">whether time for compliance with statutory demand should be extended to accommodate appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 877">whether company should be required to make payment into court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 877">terms on which extension should be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">o 62 r 46 of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">taxing officer's estimate of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">notice of objection filed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">application for waiver of security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">whether discretion to waive payment should be exercised procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">nature of appeal from registrar</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">whether rehearing or hearing de novo is required procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">allegation of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">no evidence of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2001] WASCA 419">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2001] WASCA 419">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2001] WASCA 419">application to set aside statutory demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2001] WASCA 419">dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2001] WASCA 419">offsetting claim first raised in affidavit outside 21 day time limit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2001] WASCA 419">whether necessary to indicate details of alleged dispute within 21 days</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2001] WASCA 419">whether demand an abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2001] WASCA 360">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2001] WASCA 360">statutory demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2001] WASCA 360">application to set demand aside pursuant to s 459g</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2001] WASCA 360">whether genuine dispute as to alleged debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2001] WASCA 360">whether first affidavit satisfied "threshold test"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2001] WASCA 360">whether documentary evidence supporting claim to money required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1999] VSC 435">companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1999] VSC 435">application to set aside statutory demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1999] VSC 435">service of application interstate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1999] VSC 435">non-compliance with service and execution of process act 1992</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1999] VSC 435">whether good service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1999] VSC 435">whether service provisions of part 5.4 prevail over service and execution of process act 1992 -whether curable by order for substituted service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1999] VSC 435">whether waived by entry of appearance. corporations law ss 459e, 459g, 109x form 509h service and execution of process act 1992</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1996] FCA 1783">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1996] FCA 1783">statutory demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1996] FCA 1783">setting aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1996] FCA 1783">supporting affidavit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1996] FCA 1783">whether condition of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1996] FCA 1783">minimum requirements of affidavit.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">application to set aside statutory demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">whether offsetting claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">requirement that court be "satisfied" of existence of a "genuine" claim by way of counter claim, set-off or cross-demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">creditor serving demand, as mortgagee entering into put-and-call option in respect of mortgaged properties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">whether company has a claim before put option or call option is exercised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">necessity for offsetting claim to be quantifiable in money terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">whether court has power to extend time allowed for making of application to set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">whether "defect" in statutory demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">statutory demand relating to two or more debts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">whether statutory demand must specify the separate debts and the amounts of them</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">whether "substantial injustice" caused if statutory demand not set aside.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 34">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 34">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 34">stay of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 34">action for wrongful dismissal against university</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 34">information for criminal defamation by plaintiff against officer of university</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 34">predominant purpose of informant to secure reinstatement or favourable settlement of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 34">whether abuse of process.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">abuse of process of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">allegations in pleading by corporation inconsistent with allegations by director in other proceedings in industrial relations commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">principles underlying power to stay or dismiss for abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">confidence in or respect for authority of courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">restraint in exercise of power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">vague and embarrassing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">inadequate material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">not cured by particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">striking out orders made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">general leave to amend.  truck act 1899-1904 ss.3, 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 61">statutory demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 61">review of registrar's decision dismissing application to set aside statutory demand under s 459h of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 61">whether review of no utility on basis of deemed insolvency arising from non-compliance with demand within statutory time limit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 61">consideration of alternative bases for review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 61">whether there was a genuine dispute about the existence of the debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 61">whether monies the subject of transfer held on trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 61">whether company accounts otherwise sufficient to establish existence of a plausible claim practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 61">whether notice to produce should be set aside under order 33 r 12(1) of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 61">where documents called upon relate to a ground of review which is not available.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 61" id="cs0">4 There is a substantial body of authority in the Federal Court and other Australian Courts that the Court has no power to extend the time for compliance after it has expired: Aussie Vic Plant Hire Pty Ltd v Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd [2007] VSCA 121 ; (2007) 63 ACSR 300 and GJ Gears Australia Pty Ltd v Brobo Group Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 330 ; (2006) 229 ALR 638 at [46] to [52] and the authorities referred to therein. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] VSCA 121" id="cs1">28 As already noted, the power to extend the time for compliance conferred by paragraph (a)(i) is exercisable by the court--

 "...on hearing the [company's] application under section 459G , or on an application by the company under this paragraph ..."

 As first pointed out by Jenkinson J in Livestock Traders , and accepted ever since, the phrase "the period specified... in the last such order" in paragraph (a)(i) shows that the power to extend time is exercisable from time to time as occasion requires. [34] The High Court in David Grant noted that an extension effected by an order under paragraph (a)(i) "may itself be extended on further application". [35] Nor is there any doubt that the power is available to a court exercising an appellate function. [36]  24 Here, as noted earlier, the Master did exercise the power conferred by paragraph (a)(i) to extend the time for compliance with the demand. Plainly enough, once an order has been made under paragraph (a)(i), the determination of when the time for compliance expires is governed exclusively by paragraph (a)(i). Paragraph (a)(ii) has no application at all. That the paragraphs are mutually exclusive is clear from the use of the word "otherwise" at the commencement of paragraph (a)(ii). This has been accepted since the decision of Jenkinson J in Livestock Traders International Pty Ltd v BUI (" Livestock Traders "). [33]  71 In G  J Gears , Kenny J did deal with the present question. There was an application before her Honour under s 459G to set aside a statutory demand. This was a rehearing of an application to the Registrar of the Court (equivalent to a Master in this Court). The company had also made application for an extension of the time for compliance. Her Honour dismissed the application to extend time, holding that ---

 "The Court has no power to extend the time for compliance with the statutory demand because the time for compliance has expired. G  J Gears is deemed to be insolvent because it has failed to comply with the demand within the time required, as extended by the registrar. A review of the registrar's decision is therefore nugatory. " [94]  [128] French, Kiefel and Sundberg JJ. [129] Equuscorp , 701. Although their Honours did not say this in terms, given their reference to the cases which they cited in support of the conclusion that "[p]rovided an application for an extension is brought before the expiry of the period fixed for compliance, that period can be further extended even if the s 459G application has been determined", including Livestock and Graywinter , I think it is plain enough that, as Kenny J recognised in G  J Gears Australia Pty Ltd v Brobo Group Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 330 (" Gears "), [49]-[51], their Honours meant that no such extension could be granted after the period in question has expired. [130] Gears , [49]-[52]. [131] Sub-s 7 was an original provision of the Act ; sub-s (6A) was inserted by the Bankruptcy Amendment Act 1980 . 62 But the submission is seriously inaccurate. A review of the authorities cited reveals that there are only four decisions --- all of single judges --- in which the question in issue on this appeal has been considered on its merits. The first two are the decisions to which we have already referred, of Jenkinson J in Livestock Traders and of Ryan J in Graywinter Properties . The other two --- of Hansen J in Burwood Retail Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (" Burwood Retail ") [71] and of Kenny J in G  J Gears Australia Pty Ltd v Brobo Group Pty Ltd (" G  J Gears ") [72] --- are, essentially, applications of the earlier two decisions.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 6 Effect of this Part</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459C Presumptions to be made in certain proceedings</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459E Creditor may serve statutory demand on company</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459F When company taken to fail to comply with statutory demand</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459G Company may apply</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459H Determination of application where there is a dispute or offsetting claim</title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459J Setting aside demand on other grounds</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459S Company may not oppose application on certain grounds</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 35A Powers of Registrars</title>
<title id="l11">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l12">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 62">courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 62">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 62">federal claims hopeless but not colourable, in the sense that they were made for the improper purpose of fabricating jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 62">once federal jurisdiction attracted, it remains, even though federal matters abandoned</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">whether conduct capable of amounting to representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">whether representations continuous or made as to future matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">onus of proof in establishing 'reasonable grounds' for making representation. tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">whether a duty of care to avoid economic loss owed. damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">method of calculation in claims under trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">no error in primary judge's approach.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 177">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 177">whether notice given by landlord containing new rental assessment valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 177">whether notice unequivocal and whether reasonable recipient would have no doubt as to meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 177">whether reasonable recipient credited with knowledge of terms of lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 177">whether party misled by notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 177">whether absolute clarity required  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 177">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 177">causation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 177">whether third party assessment causative of applicant's loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 177">sufficient cause or connexion required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 177">consideration of the commonsense approach and the but for test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 177">whether break in casual connexion between contravention and loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 177">whether reliance on third party's assessment practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 177">amendment to pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 177">whether amendment should be allowed after appeal process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 177">whether issue of implied term be remitted for further hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 16">woolcock street investments pty ltd v cdg pty ltd  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 16">duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 16">where pure economic or financial loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 16">whether engineer owed duty of care to subsequent owner of commercial premises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 16">salient features of relationship giving rise to duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 16">vulnerability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 16">assumption of responsibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 16">known reliance (or dependence)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 16">relevance of latent defects and structural defects.  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 16">duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 16">where pure economic or financial loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 16">whether engineer owed duty of care to subsequent owner of commercial premises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 16">construction of dwellings and construction of other buildings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2004] HCA 16">relevance of the contract with the original owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2004] HCA 16">relevance of statutory protection.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2004] HCA 16">whether cause of action on agreed facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2004] HCA 16">sufficiency of pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2004] HCA 16">limitations on determining separate questions.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">pleading referring to s 51a of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">particulars giving specificity to the alleged representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">utility of trial judge's finding where proceeded on an incorrect assumption</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">question of fact involving credibility findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">where credibility findings made, reliance not to be determined on a gould v vaggelas [1985] hca 85 ; (1983) 157 clr 215 presumptive basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">lack of authority must be pleaded to prevent surprise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">whether representation with respect to a future matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">approach in miba pty ltd v nescor industries group pty ltd (1966) 141 alr 525 not adopted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">relevance of expression of belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">proper approach to s 51a of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">whether representation was misleading and deceptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">where no evidence of reasonable grounds for the representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">whether parties had relied on the representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">indirect causation under s 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">relief under s 82 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">taxation and revenue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">whether liable for withholding tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">definition of royalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">courts and judicial system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">lengthy judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 58">importance of confining judgment to essential submissions and reasoning. d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">graham barclay oysters pty ltd v ryan  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">local authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">harvesting of contaminated oysters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">oysters causing hepatitis a infection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">knowledge of risk on part of officers of the authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">failure by the authority to exercise statutory powers to control water pollution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">reasonableness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">class to whom duty owed when exercising power to control pollution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">causation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">whether minimisation of pollution and thus risk of viral contamination would have prevented infection.   negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">oyster grower and distributor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">breach of duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">harvesting of contaminated oysters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">oysters causing hepatitis a infection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">failure to refrain from harvesting and selling oysters during relevant period.  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">the state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.18">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">harvesting of contaminated oysters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.19">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">oysters causing hepatitis a infection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.20">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">knowledge of risk on part of officers of the state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.21">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">failure to exercise general statutory powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.22">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">relevance of state "control" of industry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.23">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">reasonableness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.24">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">justiciability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.25">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">failure to exercise specific statutory power of closure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.26">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">whether power enlivened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.27">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">class to whom duty owed when exercising power.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.28">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.29">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">representative action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.30">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">declaration of legal right concerning individual entitlement to recovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.31">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">whether the making of such a declaration inappropriate or beyond power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.32">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">whether statute and nature of representative proceeding sustain a declaratory order.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 36">perre v apand pty ltd  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 36">duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 36">economic loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 36">factors relevant to determination of duty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">michael marks  ors v gio australia holdings limited  ors  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">measure of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">whether analogous with damages in tort or contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">distinction between "expectation" and "reliance" loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">whether loss or damage suffered or likely to be suffered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">whether damage caused "by conduct of" defendant.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 437">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 437">damages under part v of the trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 437">whether reliance is necessary pre-condition for award of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 437">whether competitor who suffers damage arising from contravention but has not relied on the contravening conduct is entitled to damages.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">claims under ss. 82 and 87 of trade practices act and accrued jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">alleged representations as to availability of loan to finance purchase of farming property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">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="cp12.5">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">respondent company found to have contravened s. 52</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">whether managing director of company involved in contravention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">effect upon claim for damages of 3 year limitation period in s. 82(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">consideration of when cause of action arose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">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="cp12.10">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">whether damages too remote</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">observations as to test of remoteness applicable to claim under s. 82</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">failure of applicants to reduce liabilities by sale of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">whether novus causa interveniens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">whether relief sought under s. 87(2)(d) subject to limitation period in s. 82(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.15">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">alleged negligent mis-statement and undue influence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.16">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="cp12.17">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">no case submission by two of three respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.18">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">election not to call evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.19">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">circumstances in which submission may be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.20">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">whether submission may only be made if by all respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.21">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">whether distinction between submission of no case in law or on the evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.22">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="cp12.23">cited from="[1986] FCA 41">observations on question of non-suit in federal court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">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="cp13.3">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="cp13.4">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="cp13.5">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">some articles of news more readily to be taken as statements by newspaper than others</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">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="cp13.7">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">publication of statements including statements of opinion in ordinary course of publication of newspaper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">whether misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">whether statements convey misrepresentation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">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="cp14.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 32">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 32">contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 32">whether a notice given under a contract is misleading or deceptive</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 32" id="cs0"/>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l1">CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 </title>
<title id="l2">CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 - SECT 5B General principles</title>
<title id="l3">CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 - SECT 5C Other principles</title>
<title id="l4">CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 - SECT 5D General principles</title>
<title id="l5">CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 - SECT 42 Principles concerning resources, responsibilities etc of public or other authorities</title>
<title id="l6">CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l7">CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT 1988 - SECT 5 Crown may be sued</title>
<title id="l8">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 </title>
<title id="l9">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 3 Extent to which Act binds the Crown</title>
<title id="l10">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 4 Definitions</title>
<title id="l11">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 42 Reference of certain questions to Products Safety Committee</title>
<title id="l12">HOUSING ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l13">HOUSING ACT 2001 - SECT 5 Objects of Act</title>
<title id="l14">HOUSING ACT 2001 - SECT 6 Establishment of New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation</title>
<title id="l15">HOUSING ACT 2001 - SECT 7 Functions of Corporation generally</title>
<title id="l16">HOUSING ACT 2001 - SECT 12 Corporation may enter into contracts</title>
<title id="l17">INTERPRETATION ACT 1987 </title>
<title id="l18">INTERPRETATION ACT 1987 - SECT 50 Statutory corporations</title>
<title id="l19">INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l20">INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION ACT 1988 - SECT 11 Duty to notify Commission of possible corrupt conduct</title>
<title id="l21">PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND MANAGEMENT ACT 2002 </title>
<title id="l22">PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND MANAGEMENT ACT 2002 - SECT 45 Requirements relating to procedural guidelines</title>
<title id="l23">PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND MANAGEMENT ACT 2002 - SECT 49 Suspension of officers from duty pending decision in relation to misconduct or criminal charge</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 89">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 89">spouse visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 89">domestic violence exception</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 89">statutory declarations by competent persons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 89">whether statement that, in the competent person's opinion, relevant domestic violence has been suffered can be implicit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 89">whether sufficient to state that presentation consistent with domestic violence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">szbel v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">protection visa decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant claimed he feared persecution on basis of his conversion to christianity if returned to iran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">delegate of the first respondent refused to grant appellant protection visa because not satisfied of the genuineness of appellant's conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">review by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant invited by tribunal to give evidence relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant gave evidence addressed to the delegate's concern regarding the genuineness of his conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa on the basis that appellant's claims were not credible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether tribunal failed to notify the appellant adequately of the issues to which its reasoning processes were directed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether failure of tribunal to ask the appellant to address issues that it considered might be important amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">circumstances in which a later full court can depart from an earlier full court decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">stare decisis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">determining ratio decidendi</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">application of minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v al shamry (2001) 110 fcr 27  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">the application of s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">meaning of 'application', 'information', and 'reason, or part of the reason' in s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">re mcbain; ex parte australian catholic bishops conference  re mcbain; ex parte attorney-general (cth) ex rel australian episcopal conference of the roman catholic church  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">claims in court's original jurisdiction to certiorari for non-jurisdictional error of law on the face of the record in respect of concluded federal court litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">claimants not parties to prior litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">no parties to prior litigation instituted appeal or sought constitutional relief in respect of the judgment in that litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">claimants include commonwealth attorney-general seeking to affirm the operation of a state law as not inconsistent with federal law within the meaning of s 109 of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether claims give rise to a "matter" under ch iii of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether a matter arises under s 75(v) or s 76(i) of the constitution independently of the right of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether, if so, relief should be granted in the exercise of the court's discretion.  high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether court's original jurisdiction extends to claims to certiorari for non-jurisdictional error of law on the face of the record in respect of concluded federal court litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">claimants not parties to prior litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether claims give rise to a "matter" under ch iii of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether a matter arises under s 75(v) or s 76(i) of the constitution independently of the right of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">exercise of discretion to provide such relief.  certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether available against a judge of a federal superior court in respect of non-jurisdictional error of law on the face of the record</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">discretion to grant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether attorney-general entitled to certiorari as of right</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">factors favouring discretionary refusal to grant certiorari in respect of non-jurisdictional error of law on the face of the record in litigation to which claimants were not parties.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">application to extend time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">application by commonwealth attorney-general on the relation of another for writ of certiorari instituted out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">factors favouring non-extension of time.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.23">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.24">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">intervention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.25">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">application by commonwealth attorney-general</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.26">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">intervention by attorney-general to put submissions partly at odds with submissions put by relator in name of attorney-general.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">re refugee review tribunal; ex parte aala  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">failure to afford procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">prosecutor denied opportunity to be heard on matters affecting credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prosecutor denied possibility of a successful outcome.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">nature of constitutional writ of prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">availability of writ of prohibition for failure to accord procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prohibition available as of right or by discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether application should be rejected due to delay.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">construction of constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">meaning to be given to words in s 75(v)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">relevance of meaning at time of commencement of constitution .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">discretionary power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">right to be heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">requirement of procedural fairness in initial licence grant process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">distinction between initial grant and renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">evaluation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether evaluation based upon materials supplied by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">need to identify critical issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">third party materials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">opportunity to rebutt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">consistent with admissions by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">improper exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether fettered by rule of policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether evidence of rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">refusal of licence to retail "x" videos</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">revenue raising statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.18">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">fit and proper person requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.19">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">applicant trading in breach of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.20">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether applicant not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 359A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 360 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 - REG 1.24 Evidence</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 - REG 1.26 Statutory declaration by competent person</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 172">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 172">purported appeal from judgment of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 172">dismissal of application due to failure of applicant to appear</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 172">failure to appear at directions hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1491">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1491">applications for an extension of time in which to appeal and for leave to appeal the interlocutory judgment of a federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1491">where application dismissed by federal magistrate due to non-attendance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1491">no reasonable explanation for non-attendance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1491">no arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1491">applications refused</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 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 160">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 160">amended applications for trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 160">full court held amendments not in conformity with s 65 trade marks act 1955 (cth) and marks in their amended form invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 160">motion to remit marks in their unamended form for further consideration by primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1524">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1524">revocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1524">invalidity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1524">lack of inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1524">obviousness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1524">obvious to try</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1177">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1177">patent infringement action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1177">cross-claim for revocation of patent remitted by a full court to primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1177">re-consideration of the ground of lack of inventive merit and costs of the cross-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1177">consideration of further application for amendment of the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1997] HCA 14">de l v director-general, nsw department of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1993] HCA 6">courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1993] HCA 6">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1993] HCA 6">judgments and orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1993] HCA 6">power to vacate before order passed and entered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1993] HCA 6">circumstances in which power exercised.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">re-opening case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">order pronounced but not entered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">nature of review where re-opening allowed.  natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">disciplinary proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">barrister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">professional misconduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">charge of announcing appearance without instructions from solicitor and deliberately misleading court by informing it that instructed by solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">finding of deliberate lie</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">failure to give opportunity to be heard on whether finding should be made.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1379">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1379">whether oversight in determination of questions separately before trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1379">reasons relate to unanswered question</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1379">not necessary to recall and reconsider reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1379">necessary for matter to proceed to trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1387">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1387">applications to re-open case after reasons for decision given and prior to entry of orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1387">whether re-opening in the interests of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1387">importance of finality of litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1387">mere discontent with reasons insufficient to justify re-opening</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">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 1379" id="cs0">There can be no doubt that the Court has power to recall and reconsider reasons which it has given. That power must be exercised sparingly and in the interests of justice. In Nutrasweet Australia Pty Ltd v Ajinomoto Co Inc (No 3) ; [2007] FCA 966 ; (2007) 73 IPR 282 at [12] Finkelstein J said:

 "The power to reopen a case is not in doubt. It is, however, a power that must be exercised sparingly, having regard to the public interest in maintaining the finality of litigation. Smith v New South Wales Bar Association (No 2) [1992] HCA 36 ; (1992) 176 CLR 256 at 265. Still, there are occasions in which it is both appropriate and fair to allow further argument and even further evidence in a case before it is finally disposed of. For example, if it turns out that a court finds that the unsuccessful party has not had the clear and adequate opportunity to argue its case, there might be a denial of procedural fairness if the case were not reopened: Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) [1993] HCA 6 ; (1993) 176 CLR 300 at 309. It would also be appropriate to reopen if it were clear that the court had proceeded "on a misapprehension as to the facts or the law", especially where the misapprehension was the result of accident or oversight and not the fault of the party seeking to reopen the case: De L v Director-General, NSW Department of Community Services (No 2) (1997) 190 CLR 207. "

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1387" id="cs1">7 Although Aristocrat was an intellectual property case and I am here concerned with the administration of a bankrupt estate and related matters, I consider that the principles outlined by Allsop J provide appropriate general guidance as to the approach to be taken on the present motions. In particular I proceed on the basis that a party who seeks an order that I withdraw and reconsider any part of the reasons for judgment earlier published by me must demonstrate why the interests of justice suggest that this would be an appropriate course for me to adopt. Mere discontent with an aspect of my published reasons for judgment is not sufficient to override the public interest in the finality of litigation. I find support for the above conclusion in Nutrasweet Australia Pty Ltd v Ajinomoto Co Inc (No 3) [2007] FCA 966 ; (2007) 73 IPR 282 at [12] where Finkelstein J said:
 The power to reopen a case is not in doubt. It is, however, a power that must be exercised sparingly, having regard to the public interest in maintaining the finality of litigation. Smith v New South Wales Bar Association (No 2) [1992] HCA 36 ; (1992) 176 CLR 256 , 265. Still, there are occasions in which it is both appropriate and fair to allow further argument and even further evidence in a case before it is finally disposed of. For example, if it turns out that a court finds that the unsuccessful party has not had the clear and adequate opportunity to argue its case, there might be a denial of procedural fairness if the case were not reopened: Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) (1993) 176 CLR 300 , 309. It would also be appropriate to reopen if it were clear that the court had proceeded "on a misapprehension as to the facts or the law", especially where the misapprehension was the result of accident or oversight and not the fault of the party seeking to reopen the case: De L v Director-General, NSW Department of Community Services (No 2) [1997] HCA 14 ; (1997) 190 CLR 207. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 34" id="cs2">1 There are two appeals presently before this Court. The first appeal (VID 731 of 2007) is against the primary judge's order that Ajinomoto Co Inc's patent number 727199 be revoked: NutraSweet Australia Pty Ltd v Ajinomoto Co Inc [2005] FCA 1524 ; (2005) 224 ALR 200 ("the revocation judgment"). The second appeal (VID 608 of 2007) is against his Honour's subsequent rejection of the appellant's application to amend its patent: NutraSweet Australia Pty Ltd v Ajinomoto Co Inc (No 3) [2007] FCA 966 ("the amendment judgment"). </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 40 Specifications</title>
<title id="l3">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 102 What amendments are not allowable?</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1993] HCA 58">parliamentary elections (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1993] HCA 58">court of disputed returns</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1993] HCA 58">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1993] HCA 58">declaration that election of candidate void</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1993] HCA 58">grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1993] HCA 58">electoral petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1993] HCA 58">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1993] HCA 58">commonwealth electoral act 1918 (cth), ss. 352(1) "bribery", "corruption", "illegal practice", 360(1), (4), 362.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 30">parliamentary elections (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 30">senate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 30">petition disputing return</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 30">failure to comply with statutory requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 30">constitutional grounds of incapability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 30">conviction and under sentence or subject to be sentenced for offence punishable by imprisonment for year or longer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 30">undischarged bankrupt or insolvent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 30">acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to foreign power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1988] HCA 30">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 44</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1988] HCA 30">commonwealth electoral act 1918 (cth), ss. 355 , 358 .  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1988] HCA 30">parliamentary elections (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1988] HCA 30">court of disputed returns</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[1988] HCA 30">power to order costs to be paid by commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[1988] HCA 30">commonwealth electoral act 1918 (cth), s. 360(1)(ix) , (4).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 </title>
<title id="l1">COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 - SECT 360 Powers of Court</title>
<title id="l2">COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 - SECT 369 Copies of petition and order of Court to be sent to House affected, Governor-General and Speaker</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>