Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 176">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 176">appeal from decision of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 176">nature of re-hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 176">credibility findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 176">vague, confusing and contradictory evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 176">inconsistent evidence given by appellant's spouse</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 176">failure to identify error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1294">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1294">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1294">anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1294">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 24">1 in paragraph [42] on page 9, substitute for the words, 'in order for an appellate court to receive further evidence, two conditions must be satisfied:', the words, 'in order for this court to receive further evidence, generally speaking (cf : cottrell v wilcox [2002] fcafc 53 ; [2002] fca 232 at [18]</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 24">[21], citing cdj v vaj (1998) 197 clr 172 at 184-186 per gaudron j, 199-201 per mchugh, gummow and callinan jj and 230-238 per kirby j) it will be found that two conditions must be satisfied:'.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">muin v refugee review tribunal  lie v refugee review tribunal  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">alleged failure to have regard to relevant documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">alleged failure to provide reasonable opportunity to respond to adverse material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">jurisdictional error for denial of procedural fairness and natural justice.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">decision by minister to refuse application for visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">review of decision by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">obligation of secretary of department of immigration and multicultural affairs to give relevant documents to registrar of tribunal for purpose of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">nature and extent of obligation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">migration act 1958 (cth), ss 418(3) , 424 (1).  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">review of administrative decision by officers of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">refusal to grant protection visa to claimant for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">requirement of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">alleged failure to have regard to relevant documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">alleged failure to provide reasonable opportunity to respond to adverse materials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">availability of constitutional relief under s 75(v) and other relief for denial of procedural fairness and natural justice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">re minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte cassim  immigration law and administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">refugee review tribunal decision refusing to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">application in original jurisdiction of high court for constitutional writs and injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">whether denial of natural justice by reason of statutory provision restricting representation and cross-examination at the hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">whether denial of natural justice by failing to investigate the applicant's claims and documents adduced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">whether denial of natural justice by taking into account an irrelevant consideration in refusing to investigate the applicant's claims and documents adduced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">whether denial of natural justice by making findings of facts so unreasonable that no reasonable tribunal could have come to them</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">whether denial of natural justice by failing to warn that a document referred to in a decision relied upon by the applicant would be relied upon</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">whether denial of natural justice by failing to provide a fair and just mechanism for review and by failing to act according to the substantial justice of the case.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">discretionary power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">right to be heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">requirement of procedural fairness in initial licence grant process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">distinction between initial grant and renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">evaluation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether evaluation based upon materials supplied by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">need to identify critical issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">third party materials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">opportunity to rebutt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">consistent with admissions by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">improper exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether fettered by rule of policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether evidence of rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">refusal of licence to retail "x" videos</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">revenue raising statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">fit and proper person requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">applicant trading in breach of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether applicant not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">hire of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">contractual indemnity by hirer against loss caused to owner from use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">action for damages against hirer and owner arising out of use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">notices of contribution between hirer and owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">claim of contribution by owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">apportionment of liability between defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">subsequent action by owner for indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">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="cp9.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">wrongs act 1958 (vict.) s. 24 (1) (c).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">alleged inadequacy of interpretation of hearing before the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">whether interpretation gave rise to a breach of s 425 migration act 1958 (cth) and procedural unfairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">circumstances of the case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">whether federal magistrate's treatment of expert evidence on standard of interpretation was in error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">whether federal magistrate's findings with respect to appellant's credibility in error    estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">whether judgment in first respondent's favour following appellant's failure to appear gave rise to a res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">whether judgment determining whether application should be re-instated gave rise to a res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">principles to be applied in determining whether a res judicata arises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">whether final determination of the merits of the case so as to give rise to a res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">whether prior proceedings gave rise to anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 783">whether further application an abuse of process</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 783" id="cs0">If required to do so, however, I would place significant weight on the fact that the claim of inadequate interpretation has never been the subject of any judicial consideration before this proceeding. Further, the appellant has not had the benefit of legal representation before this proceeding. It is true that lack of legal representation is insufficient of itself to avoid an Anshun estoppel ( MZWKJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 761 at [19] ; MZWGJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1501 at [11] ). But that is not the only relevant factor in this case. Substantial resources have been necessary to mount the argument including the preparation of the transcript of the hearing before the Tribunal and the obtaining of Ms Qian's evidence. The Minister referred to the decision in MZWKJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 761 , in which an Anshun estoppel was found to arise. But that case involved different facts. In that case, the applicants had made an application to the High Court for an order nisi in respect of the Tribunal's decision. The High Court remitted the matter to this Court. Weinberg J refused the application and Finkelstein J then refused an application for leave to appeal (at [3]). The applicants then filed an application for review with the Federal Magistrates Court. The Federal Magistrate found an Anshun estoppel. On appeal Kenny J agreed. The facts of that case are thus analogous to Applicant A321 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 306 (discussed above) and dissimilar from the present case. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1617">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1617">cartel conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1617">visy companies and amcor companies held 90 per cent of the corrugated fibreboard packaging market in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1617">between january 2000 and october 2004 visy and amcor engaged in price-fixing and market sharing contrary to s 45 of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1617">amcor received conditional immunity from action by the australian competition and consumer commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1617">commission brought action against visy companies and three of its senior officers four categories of contraventions: over-arching understanding in 2000 to maintain market share and increase prices; annual price increase understandings each year for 2000 to 2003, customer price understandings and compensation understandings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1617">respondents admitted liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1617">parties submitted an agreed statement of facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 749">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 749">representative proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 749">fixing a date for opting out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 749">adequate time to be given</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 749">need for an informed decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 749">form of notice to be given</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 749">need for court approval</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 749">importance of notice being accurate and not misleading</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 749" id="cs0">It should finally be noted that the Court retains an important and continuing role in managing representative proceedings in the public interest: Johnstone v HIH Ltd [2004] FCA 190. Tamberlin J there said:

 [105] The Court has an important and continuing role in managing representative proceedings in the public interest to rectify any potentially misleading communications to class members or potential class members, in order to ensure that there is no misunderstanding engendered by such communications, particularly when they emanate from legal advisers, as to rights and obligations and procedures to be followed by recipients of such communications.

In an appropriate case, an order may thus be made that a correcting notice may be issued to remedy any misstatements that may be made during the course of a proceeding: Jarra Creek Central Packing Shed Pty Ltd v Amcor Limited [2008] FCA 575.
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 23 Making of orders and issue of writs</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 33J Right of group member to opt out</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 33K Causes of action accruing after commencement of representative proceeding</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 33X Notice to be given of certain matters</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 118">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 118">amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 118">application for leave to file a cross-claim out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 118">discretionary considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 118">adjournment to file further evidence, made at hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 118">whether appealable error shown.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 264">vacation of trial date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 264">relevant principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 264">costs assessed and paid forthwith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 264">costs in security for costs application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1582">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1582">application to vacate hearing dates</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1582">prejudice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1582">withdrawal of lawyers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1582">medical condition of lawyer with conduct of the matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1582">efforts made to obtain representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1582">issue of effective representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1582">case management considerations.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1582">alleged breach of industry franchising code.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1582" id="cs0">This raises a further issue: do the respondents need lawyers to represent them? Strictly speaking they do not. The second respondent could self-represent, the first respondent could, with leave of the Court, be represented by the second respondent. [20] In any event, it is not, again strictly speaking the case that withdrawal of, or change of, legal representation shortly before a hearing will necessarily or even routinely warrant a court vacating hearing dates. [21] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1032" id="cs1">7 Mr Senathirajah, who appeared for the plaintiff, applied for the hearing of the defendants' Notice of Motion to be adjourned until at least 16 July 2008 because of the unavailability of counsel who had settled the statement of facts and contentions. While accepting that the availability of counsel would rarely be a sufficient basis for the adjournment of a hearing, Mr Senathirajah pointed out that it was only upon receipt of the defendants' letter on 18 June 2008 that the plaintiff had been put on notice of the defendants' concerns about the statement of facts and contentions, and that the defendants had permitted a further period of about a week to pass before filing the instant Notice of Motion. He submitted also that a fair defence of the statement required the attention of counsel who had settled it, and who had a detailed familiarity with the facts of the case. In this respect, Mr Senathirajah relied upon State of Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 1 ; (1997) 189 CLR 146 ; upon Smith v Gannawarra Shire Council [2002] VSCA 69 ; (2002) 4 VR 344 and upon Forbes Engineering (Asia) Pte Ltd v Forbes [2007] FCA 1598. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1637" id="cs2">6 I note that:

• One of the reasons I ordered the hearing dates vacated was because I accepted the view taken by the new solicitor for the respondents that, in light of developments following the hearing of 26 September 2007, a second further amended defence would need to be filed and served ( Forbes Engineering (Asia) Pte Limited v Mark Forbes [2007] FCA 1598 at [19] ). • The orders of 18 October 2007, which accepted that leave to amend the respondents' further amended defence had been given pursuant to O 13 r 3, and directed that a second further amended defence be filed within a short time frame, were made in light of those reasons. • I accept the submission of the respondents, and it is not in dispute, that the legal representatives for the applicants had been in possession of a copy of the proposed second further amended defence since the morning of 18 October 2007, but no objection was made by the legal representatives when I made the relevant orders, including the order of which complaint is now made, on the afternoon of 18 October 2007.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1389">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1389">damages for alleged breaches of duty arising from administrative acts of respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1389">whether jurisdiction to hear the matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1389">whether private right of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1389">whether misfeasance in public office.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1389">application for summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1389">whether no reasonable prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1389">whether abuse of process.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1741">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1741">consideration of an appeal from the federal magistrates court of australia on the ground that there was no evidence before the refugee review tribunal which entitled the tribunal to reach the findings of fact it reached</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1741">consideration of whether inferences might properly be drawn from facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1741">consideration of the appellant's contention that the decision of the tribunal was irrational, unsound, unreasonable and not supported by any evidence probative of findings rejecting the credit-worthiness of the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1345">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1345">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1345">grounds of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1345">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1345">refusal of application for adjournment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1345">whether breach of administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth) s 39</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1345">whether reasonable opportunity to present case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">motions for dismissal of proceedings pursuant to federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">alternatively for statement of claim to be struck out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">federal court rules order 11 rule 16 or order 20 rule 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">construction of option in contract to lease and subsequent deed of lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">consideration of evidence of extrinsic material in aid of construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">common intention unilateral mistake</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">equitable estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">breach of warranty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">unconscionable conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">ss 51aa and 51ac of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">ss 6(3) and 52 trade practices act and s 10 fair trading act 1987 (wa).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">orders for judgment for cross-respondents on part of cross-claim made under s 31a(2) of federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">balance of cross-claim remaining on foot</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">nature of orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">interlocutory or final</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">test for determining nature of order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legal effect of judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether judgment or order under s 31a for party on part or all of claim finally disposes rights of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">applicability of case law concerning dismissal of proceedings that are frivolous or vexatious, do not disclose a cause of action, or are an abuse of the process of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">applicability of case law concerning summary judgment under federal court rules , o 20 r 2 trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">unconscionable conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">claim pursuant to s 51ac(1) of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">relationship between sub-ss 51ac(1) and (9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">meaning of "price" in s 51ac(9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">price of "supply or possible supply of goods or services"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether prices in all transactions between parties must be aggregated regardless of limited time at which conduct alleged to be unconscionable  statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">interpretation and construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislative intent behind s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">construction of test in s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">purposive test, acts interpretation act 1901 (cth), s 15aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislative intent behind s 51ac</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether sub-s 51ac(9) intended to provide an exception to sub-s 51ac(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.23">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1058">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1058">review of decision of administrative appeals tribunal ('tribunal') that veteran's death was war-caused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1058">whether tribunal considered whole of the material before it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1058">whether material raised a reasonable hypothesis in the context of the veteran's service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1058">consideration of principles to be applied  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1058">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1058">whether breach of s 39 of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1058">where tribunal failed to give opportunity to applicant to examine bundle of documents handed to tribunal at the hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1058">where tribunal indicated that submissions would be received on the weight to be attached to the documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1058">where tribunal did not receive further submissions and relied upon documents in its decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 1058">consideration of circumstances in which matter must be remitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 923">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 923">order sought for summary judgment in relation to appellant's notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 923">whether appellant has a reasonable prospect of success in the appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 923">summary judgment granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 923">appeal dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">commissioner published guidelines to effect that he would concede confidentiality in respect of, and deny himself access to, certain advising papers of external accountants, unless he or an officer of a certain rank of the australian taxation office ("ato") should decide that there were "exceptional circumstances"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">in proceedings before the court, being appeals under part ivc of the taxation administration act 1953 (cth), taxpayers gave discovery, and claimed that certain documents discovered were covered by the "accountants' concession" within the guidelines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">officer of appropriate rank within the ato decided that there were exceptional circumstances, and approved of access to the documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">different ato officer caused a notice to produce the documents to issue to taxpayers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">taxpayers issued this present proceeding challenging the senior officer's decision allowing access, under s 5 of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) ("ad(jr) act") and under s 39b(1) and (1a) of the judiciary act 1903 (cth) (" judiciary act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">application for summary dismissal of proceeding based on suggested incompetency of present application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">whether decision to allow access was a "decision of an administrative character made ... under an enactment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">whether guidelines were "an enactment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">scope of "matter ... arising under any laws made by the parliament" within s 39b(1a)(c) of judiciary act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">test for summary dismissal under s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">meaning of "no reasonable prospect of success"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 299">the two ministers and the commonwealth, by their present application to secure a "summary judgment", seek to have these proceedings stopped at this point as a matter of law, without the need to look at the evidence. they say that, even assuming that the allegations in mr hicks' claim are accepted, there is no reasonable prospect of success. part of the application by the ministers and the commonwealth for summary judgment is on the basis that this court cannot enter into a consideration of a case which may result in a finding that an action of a state other than australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 299">here, the united states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 299">is unlawful. they say that there are no proper standards by which the court can resolve the issues raised by mr hicks because delicate questions of diplomatic negotiation between australia and the united states are involved and a finding by a court may impact on these relations.the question of mr hicks' internment is said to be "political" in nature and is one concerning foreign relations and these are areas into which the court should not intrude because the decision will involve standards which are "non-justiciable" and which a court cannot properly apply.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">application to strike out statement of claim and cross-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">proper approach to meaning of "reasonable prospect of success" in s 31a of the federal court act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">requirement of actual knowledge of falsity of representation for accessory liability under s 75b of the trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">application allowed in part</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">application for summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">summary dismissal of proceedings against certain respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">application of s 31a of the federal court of australia act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">inapplicability to applications to strike out parts of pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">nature of "reasonable prospect" assessment required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">affidavit of respondents denying relevant knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">affidavit unanswered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">generality of affidavit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">affidavit material insufficient to demonstrate no reasonable prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">motion for summary dismissal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">application for summary dismissal of proceedings under section 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">test to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">assignment of choses in action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">where claim brought by person claiming to be assignee under a contract for sale of a business to enforce rights of assignor in contract and under section 51ac and s 52 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">where assignor company now deregistered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether purported assignment effective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether statutory claim capable of assignment  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether claim for damages under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) capable of assignment  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages under s 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) not capable of assignment; pleadings fundamentally flawed and disclosed no reasonable prospect of success; proceedings summarily dismissed  words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">"no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 898">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 898">claims against secretary of department of employment and workplace relations alleging criminal offences and civil liability to pay social security benefits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 33">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 33">exercise of discretion conferred upon the administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 33">scope of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 33">consideration of principles governing the exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 33">acting judicially</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 33">consideration of the influence of authorities dealing with the exercise of curial discretion compared with discretion exercised by an administrative tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 33">consideration of whether questions of law properly raised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 33">consideration of the need to formulate questions of law properly</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 33">consideration of principles derived from calderbank v calderbank and cutts v head .  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 33">consideration of the exercise of discretion by an administrative tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 33">consideration of "without prejudice" letters of offer. practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 33">consideration of need to formulate questions of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 33">consideration of order 53, rule 3 of the federal court rules .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 20">statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 20">repeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 20">transitional provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 20">proceedings instituted but not completed before repeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 20">right accrued under repealed act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 20">application for redemption of weekly compensation payments made under an act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 20">act repealed before hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 20">whether right for application to be determined under repealed act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">cited from="[1992] HCA 20">compensation (commonwealth government employees) act 1971 (cth), s. 49</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">cited from="[1992] HCA 20">commonwealth employees' rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth), ss. 30 , 124 , 127 , 129</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.10">cited from="[1992] HCA 20">acts interpretation act 1901 (cth), s. 8(c) , (e).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.21">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">grounds on which further appellate court will interfere with intermediate court's exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">immigration and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">power of minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">principles of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">standing as australian citizen of infant daughter of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">intended deportation order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether notice required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">migration act 1958 (cth), ss. 6 , 6a, 7 , 18 .  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.9">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.10">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.11">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.12">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">order for deportation of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.13">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">review of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.14">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 5 , 13 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1223">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1223">whether any departure from costs following the event can be justified</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1223" id="cs0">In Underdown v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2009] FCA 965 ( Underdown No 1 ), I concluded (at [64]) that the appeal was incompetent and had no prospects of success. I made the following additional observations (at [65] and [66]): These reasons do not develop at length the underlying very sad circumstances in which the complete breakdown in communications between Mr Fazio (now) and Centrelink have developed. However unfortunate that may be, there is no power in the Court to entertain this appeal but, in any event, no useful purpose would be served by allowing an inevitably doomed appeal to continue to run. To do so would not be in the interests of the respondent, of Mr Fazio, of the public or the Court. The appeal must be dismissed. Costs would follow the event in the ordinary course. I will allow Mr Fazio 10 days from the date of delivery of the reasons file any written submissions as to why costs should not follow the event. The Secretary is to file written submissions, if any, in response within a further 7 days. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 39 Opportunity to make submissions concerning evidence</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 4 Family relationships definitions--couples</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l6">ADMINISTRATION ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l7">ADMINISTRATION ACT 1903 - SECT 9 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">batistatos v roads and traffic authority of new south wales  batistatos v newcastle city council  abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">proceedings commenced in 1994 in respect of causes of action which accrued in 1965</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">appellant suffered quadriplegia and other injuries in motor accident allegedly caused by the negligence of, and nuisance created by, the respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">appellant born mentally retarded and later orphaned</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">applications brought by respondents for summary dismissal or permanent stay for abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">whether, due to the effluxion of time since the causes of action accrued, a fair trial was not possible for the respondents.  abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">factors to be considered in determining whether delay precludes the conduct of a fair trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">whether actions commenced by appellant untenable or futile</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">whether actions commenced by appellant present real question to be determined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">sufficiency of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">relevance of fundamental right to bring legal proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">relevance of summarily denying right to a trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">relevance of appellant's severely disabled condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">relevance of the extent of the investigations made by the parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">relevance of the disparity in the economic resources of the parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">relevance of fact that the 30 year ultimate limitation bar had not yet descended.  limitation of actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">appellant born mentally disabled and suffered quadriplegia in the accident out of which these proceedings arose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">appellant's causes of action not subject to 6 year limitation period which would otherwise have been imposed by the limitation act 1969 (nsw) by reason of the appellant's disabilities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">actions commenced within 30 year ultimate limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">whether limitation act 1969 (nsw) precludes court from summarily dismissing or permanently staying proceedings for abuse of process when actions commenced before expiry of limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">whether exercise of power to dismiss or stay in such circumstances is exceptional and requires proof of oppressive or contumelious conduct on the part of the plaintiff.  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">powers of courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">whether supplementary power of supreme court of new south wales properly described as inherent or implied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">distinction between inherent powers and implied powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">basis from which the state supreme court derives its jurisdiction to summarily dismiss or permanently stay proceedings.  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">powers of courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.28">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.29">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">rules of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.30">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">whether rules of court are exhaustive of the circumstances in which the supreme court can dismiss or stay proceedings for abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.31">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">weight to be given to the relevant legislative context in exercising discretion to dismiss or stay proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.32">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">where both rules of court and supplementary jurisdiction empower supreme court to stay or dismiss proceedings for abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.33">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">relationship between supplementary jurisdiction and rules of court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] VSC 138">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] VSC 138">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] VSC 138">libel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] VSC 138">joinder of two different libels</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] VSC 138">different defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] VSC 138">similar subject matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] VSC 138">rsc r.9.01(a) not applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] VSC 138">discretion under rsc r.9.01(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] VSC 138">leave to renew application later</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] VSC 138">imputations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] VSC 138">whether capable of arising.  the australian broadcasting corporation and others defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">application for preliminary discovery o 15a federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">applicant at trial sought leave to discontinue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">leave refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">application at first instance dismissed as applicant tendered no evidence costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">whether appellant should pay certain costs of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">whether discovery by appellant provided the respondent with sufficient information to determine whether to pursue its causes of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">whether primary judge erred in principles applied to dismissal of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">whether primary judge misapprehended relevant facts to be considered when making costs orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">bhp billiton limited v schultz  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">concurrent jurisdiction of different courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">cross-vesting legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">plaintiff alleges that his asbestos-related disease resulted from exposure to asbestos while working in south australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">south australia identified as the place of the alleged wrong</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">plaintiff commenced proceedings in dust diseases tribunal of new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">plaintiff a resident of south australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">whether supreme court of south australia a "more appropriate" forum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">whether proceeding to be transferred "in the interests of justice"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">relevance of circumstance that jurisdiction of the dust diseases tribunal was regularly invoked</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">relevance of plaintiff's choice of forum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">relevance of circumstance that law of other state less favourable to plaintiff than the law of the forum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">relevance of circumstance that the forum has particular experience and facility in dealing with the specific type of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">relationship between cross-vesting applications and forum non conveniens.  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">choice of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">lex loci delicti</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">new south wales statute empowers dust diseases tribunal to award further damages at a future date if the injured person develops dust-related condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">south australian statute provides for a once and for all assessment of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">whether new south wales law procedural or substantive in character.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">state parliaments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">whether state parliaments competent to legislate in a manner which curtails or interferes with the exercise of the powers of another state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.23">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">whether state parliaments competent to legislate for the exercise of adjudicative functions by their courts outside their geographical territory.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.24">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">full faith and credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.25">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">choice of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.26">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">lex loci delicti</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.27">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">whether requirement that full faith and credit be given to the laws, the public acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of every state, places it beyond competence of one state to require its courts or tribunals to determine the action by any system of substantive law other than the lex loci delicti.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">dow jones  company inc v gutnick  torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">internet</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">computer server</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">material complained of housed on computer server in united states of america</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">uploaded to world wide web</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">viewable at subscription news site on world wide web</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">downloaded to computer in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">whether material complained of was published in victoria.  torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">single publication rule.  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">choice of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">law of the place of the tort ( lex loci delicti )</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">damage to reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">where material complained of was published</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">material complained of made comprehensible when downloaded in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">place of plaintiff's reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">victorian law governs substantive rights.  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">service out of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">rules of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.23">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">service permitted without leave of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.24">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">conditions of service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.25">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">action brought in respect of tort committed in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.26">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">action brought in respect of damage suffered in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.27">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">action limited to damage to reputation in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.28">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">service validly effected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.29">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">victoria a convenient forum.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">civil practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">judicial discretion to allow claim out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">prejudice to defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">claim out of time under motor accidents act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">appeal against decision denying leave to commence proceedings out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">whether defendant would suffer prejudice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">discussion and commentary on modern role for ambush and adversarial tactics in civil proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">motor accidents act 1988 (nsw), s 52(4).  civil practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">discretion of court of appeal to admit new evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">appeal against decision denying leave to commence proceedings out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">evidence relating to causation of personal injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">supreme court act 1970 (nsw), s 75a(7) -(9).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">john pfeiffer pty limited v rogerson  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">choice of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">negligent act committed and damage suffered in new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">action commenced in australian capital territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">whether double actionability rule is a choice of law rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">whether double actionability rule applies to proceedings in federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">whether a single choice of law rule should be adopted consistently in both federal and non-federal jurisdiction in all courts in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">whether the lex fori or lex loci delicti is applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">the lex loci delicti governs torts committed in australia which have an interstate element.  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">substance and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">distinction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">matters of substance bear upon existence or enforceability of remedies rights and obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">limitations on type and quantum of damages are substantive not procedural.  limitation of actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">limitation provisions barring either right or remedy are substantive not procedural.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">full faith and credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">effect of s 118 of the constitution upon common law choice of law rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">whether a single choice of law rule should be adopted consistently in both federal and non-federal jurisdiction in all courts in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">effect of ch iii of the constitution upon common law.  tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.19">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.20">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">whether pt 5 of the workers compensation act 1987 (nsw) limits the amount of economic and non-economic loss recoverable.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 51">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 51">stay of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 51">matrimonial proceedings pending in foreign jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 51">clearly inappropriate forum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 51">"vexatious"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 51">"oppressive"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 51">relevance of foreign proceedings with respect to same issue or controversy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 51">considerations relevant to stay of matrimonial proceedings.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">hire of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">contractual indemnity by hirer against loss caused to owner from use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">action for damages against hirer and owner arising out of use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">notices of contribution between hirer and owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">claim of contribution by owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">apportionment of liability between defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">subsequent action by owner for indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">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="cp11.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">wrongs act 1958 (vict.) s. 24 (1) (c).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">contribution or indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">action by plaintiff against defendant for damages for personal injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">joinder of third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">prior action in district court arising out of same accident</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">action by third party against defendant for damages for negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">contributory negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">judgment for third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">law reform (miscellaneous provisions) act 1946 (n.s.w.) (no. 33 of 1946), s. 5 (1) (c).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 274">insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 274">motor vehicle insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 274">insurance claim for indemnity value of car arising from motor vehicle accident</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 274">insured seeking to rely on insurer's duty of utmost good faith under ss 13 and 14 of the insurance contracts act 1984 (cth)  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 274">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 274">insured seeks to raise new issues a week before hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 274">new document relating to psychiatric report introduced and alleged to be used in a manner not previously contemplated in pre-trial directions hearings or otherwise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 274">whether such an issue should be permitted to be raised at a late stage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 274">introduction and reliance on expert report without giving other party an opportunity to deal with that issue is an inappropriate departure from principles of case management and part vb of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1127">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1127">proper approach to admiralty and commercial litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1127">goods transported under bill of lading incorporating himalaya clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1127">shipper and consignee sued ship owner and stevedore for damage to cargo</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1127">stevedore successful in obtaining consent orders on motion dismissing proceedings against it based on himalaya clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1127">stevedore not furnishing critical evidence or information until after motion filed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1127">whether stevedore should have its costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1127">importance of parties cooperating to identify the real issues in dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1127">duty to resolve uncontentious issues at an early stage of litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 1127">stevedore awarded 75% of its costs of the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">original jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">motions filed seeking judgment under federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">application to strike out parts of defence federal court rules , o 11 r 16  contracts  deeds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">principles of construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">commercial transaction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">deed poll</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">circumstances where a raised money by issuing convertible notes to b pursuant to deed poll, which required a to pay an additional amount equal to 50% of initial investment in notes to b in certain circumstances which occurred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">ordinary principles of construction of contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">whether reasonable prospects of successfully arguing that certain terms ought be implied into deed poll contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">good faith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">implied term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.14">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">whether reasonable prospects of successfully arguing implied obligation to act reasonably and in good faith in particular class of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.15">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">convertible notes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.16">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">transferable security  trade practices and related matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.17">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">trade practices act 1974 (cth) misuse of market power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.18">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">whether reasonable prospects of successfully arguing contravention of s 46(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.19">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">definition of "market"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.20">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.21">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">whether reasonable prospects of successfully arguing contravention of s 52  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.22">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.23">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">whether reasonable prospects of successfully arguing amount payable under deed poll was penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.24">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">novel claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.25">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">circumstances where payment dependant on occurrence of event (change of control or delisting of issuing company) not breach of contract or covenant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.26">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">circumstances where defence not articulated precisely or clearly enough to bring out novel claim practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.27">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.28">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">need to articulate and bring forward clearly, precisely and definitively, the real issues to be litigated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.29">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">costs of litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.30">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">purpose of case management</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.31">citing from="[2008] FCA 1927">efficient and proper conduct of civil litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2008] VSC 405">agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2008] VSC 405">construction of a deed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2008] VSC 405">release</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2008] VSC 405">matters not specifically released</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2008] VSC 405">contra proferentem .</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 274" id="cs0">But it should not be thought that that overarching objective and those ends of justice have not been prominently a part of this Court's practice and procedure for many years. In White v Overland [2001] FCA 1333 [4], Allsop J eloquently demonstrated that this is so. I drew on his remarks and those of others in Intel Corporation v Unwired Group Limited [2008] FCA 1927 [63]-[64], to identify that:

 "... the purpose of case management and the docket system adopted by this Court was to enable both the parties and the Court to be informed, from the outset of the case each of the parties intends to advance and to identify the real issues in dispute. This is so that directions can be crafted to enable the efficient management of the litigation, with a view to focusing on and allowing those issues to be tried, and, at the same time, eliminating irrelevant matters quickly and efficiently: White v Overland [2001] FCA 1333 at [3]- [4] per Allsop J (applied by Heydon JA in Nowlan v Marson Transport Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 346 ; (2001) 53 NSWLR 116 at 128-129 [28] - [32], Mason P and Young CJ in Eq agreeing); Visible Results Properties Inc v Sushi Train (Australia) Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1159 at [29] per Allsop J; Snowy Mountains Organic Dairy Products Pty Ltd v Wholefoods Pty [2006] FCA 1361 at [15] per myself; Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd v Gordian Runoff Ltd [2008] NSWCA 243 at [160] - [162] per Allsop P, with whom Beazley and Campbell JJA agreed. "

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1522" id="cs1">There Gleeson CJ, McHugh and Heydon JJ said that "...the court is required by statute to ensure that cases are heard in the forum dictated by the interests of justice"; see too Snowy Mountains Organic Dairy Products Pty Ltd v Wholefoods Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1361 at [41] per myself.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1127" id="cs2">And as Heydon JA noted even in personal injury litigation 'the ambush theory of life has been abandoned' (53 NSWLR at 128 [30]); see too Snowy Mountains Organic Dairy Products Pty Ltd v Wholefoods Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1361 at [15] per myself; Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd v Gordian Runoff Ltd [2008] NSWCA 243 at [160] ---[162] per Allsop P, with whom Beazley and Campbell JJA agreed. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1927" id="cs3">63 The purpose of case management and the docket system adopted by this Court is to enable both the parties and the Court to be informed, from the outset of the case each of the parties intends to advance and to identify the real issues in dispute. This is so that directions can be crafted to enable the efficient management of the litigation, with a view to focusing on and allowing those issues to be tried, and, at the same time, eliminating irrelevant matters quickly and efficiently: White v Overland [2001] FCA 1333 at [3] - [4] per Allsop J (applied by Heydon JA in Nowlan v Marson Transport Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 346 ; (2001) 53 NSWLR 116 at 128-129 [28] - [32] , Mason P and Young CJ in Eq agreeing); Visible Results Properties Inc v Sushi Train (Australia) Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1159 at [29] per Allsop J; Snowy Mountains Organic Dairy Products Pty Ltd v Wholefoods Pty [2006] FCA 1361 at [15] per myself; Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd v Gordian Runoff Ltd [2008] NSWCA 243 at [160] - [162] per Allsop P, with whom Beazley and Campbell JJA agreed.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] VSC 405" id="cs4">7 On 19 October 2006, Rares J handed down reasons for decision [4] in which he held that this proceeding should be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria. Further, the fact that Rares J held in the cross-vesting application [30] that there was a single controversy arising out of the assertions made by Mr Kinnear in the 23 November 2004 letter [31] is not to the point.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 48 Change of venue</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 53A Arbitration, mediation and alternative dispute resolution processes</title>
<title id="l3">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l4">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l5">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l6">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 52 Misleading or deceptive conduct.</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l8">Defamation Act 1974 No 18 </title>
<title id="l9">DEFAMATION ACT 1974 - SECT 8A Corporations do not have cause of action for defamation</title>
<title id="l10">FAIR TRADING ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l11">Fair Trading Act 1999 - SECT 106 Proceedings and costs</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">appeal from judgment of the federal magistrates court -change of circumstance (residence) (class ag) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">definition of "special need relative"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">whether jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">no error shown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">no question of principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">re commonwealth of australia  anor; ex parte marks  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">factors to be considered.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">constitutional relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">whether full bench of australian industrial relations commission made a jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">role of full bench on appeal.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">whether s 347 of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth) applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">whether proceedings commenced "vexatiously or without reasonable cause".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">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="cp4.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 952">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 952">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 952">bangladeshi girl</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 952">claim that parents were stateless bihari living in a refugee camp</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FMCA 952">tribunal disbelieved claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FMCA 952">whether a finding unsupported by evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FMCA 952">whether defect in s.424a letter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FMCA 952">whether breach of s.91r(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FMCA 952">no jurisdictional error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FMCA 952">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">application for protection visa refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">tribunal's understanding of the word 'persecution'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">s 424a of migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">whether information was 'the reason or part of the reason' for affirming the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">meaning of 'information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">identification of the 'reason' for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">an interpretative task</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">discretionary ground to refuse relief</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] RRTA 616" id="cs0">In making this finding, the Tribunal has also taken into consideration the oral submission made by the applicant's adviser at the Tribunal hearing in relation to the judgment in SZLWA v MIAC [2009] FCA 952. In SZLWA , the issue as to whether the applicant was entitled to make an independent application was not challenged and was not considered by the Court. It is noted that the applicant in SZLWA made her own application for a visa before 1 July 2009. At the hearing, the solicitor said that she understood that her adviser had considered the relevance of the judgment in SZLWA v MIAC [2009] FCA 952 (29 August 2009) to the applicant's case. She requested that additional time be given for a submission on this issue to be lodged with the Tribunal. The applicant was granted time to lodge any further submission. The applicant's adviser advised the Tribunal by fax that she did not intend to lodge further submissions. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91R Persecution</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424 Tribunal may seek information</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1505">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1505">representative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1505">whether multiple actions raising same issues should be permitted to proceed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1505">factors to be considered in deciding whether to stay, consolidate or hold a joint trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1505">whether priority in time of filing, interests of lawyers, interests of litigation funders or interest of named plaintiff are relevant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1505">whether best interests of the group as a whole should be the standard for determining which action should proceed and on what basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1505">whether multiple plaintiffs may be separately represented</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1505">risk of conflict of interest between solicitor and group members in class actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 1505">whether litigation committee should be appointed in order to determine best interests of group members as a whole and select class legal representative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 1505">whether solicitor to represent class should be selected by means of court-supervised competitive bidding process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 13">jae kyung lee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 13">claimantbob chae-sang cha</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 13">first opponentjudges of the district court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 13">second opponentjik il oh</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 13">third opponentyoon shin lee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 13">fourth opponenthak joo park</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 13">fifth opponenthan yong lee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 13">sixth opponentduk in kim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 13">seventh opponenthak soo cho</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 13">eighth opponent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">concrete pty ltd v parramatta design  developments pty ltd  intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">architect's drawings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">two companies formed a joint venture and purchased a development site</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">director and shareholder of one of the companies in the joint venture also sole director and shareholder of architectural firm engaged as architect to prepare drawings for a development application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">consent received from local council for development in accordance with the drawings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">joint venturer's dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">site sold by trustees for sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">purchaser of site on notice that architect sought to deny the purchaser's use of the drawings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">whether purchaser of site had an implied licence to use the drawings.  courts and judicial system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">exchange between bench and counsel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">questioning of witness by trial judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">whether trial miscarried on the ground of apprehended bias.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 52">application for leave to appeal against interlocutory order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 52">pseudonym order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 52">standing of witness to seek leave to appeal or to appeal; standing of witness to set aside subpoena</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 52">meaning of 'judgment'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 52">principles of open justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 52">relevant discretionary factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 52">supreme court act 1970 (nsw) s 101</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 52">d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">industrial law (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">stevedoring industry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">registration of employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">cancellation or suspension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">"unfit to be registered as an employer"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">interference with proper performance of stevedoring operations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">control and supervision of employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">inquiry by delegate of stevedoring board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">prohibition to restrain delegate prior to making order of cancellation or suspension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">prejudgment of issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">statement to newspaper reporter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">stevedoring industry act 1949 (no. 39 of 1949), s. 23 (1) (a) (b).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 164">courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 164">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 164">whether reasonable apprehension of bias by reason of private communications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 164">whether statement or disclosure by judge should lead to recusal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 164">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 111">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 111">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 111">disqualification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 111">on the basis of prejudgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 111">appropriate test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 111">fair-minded observer might reasonably apprehend prejudgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 290">on the front page, in the</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 290">fourth line</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 290">insert the word 'advice' and 'a' to read:</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 164" id="cs0">I am aware that there is debate and perhaps some uncertainty as to whether in determining an application for recusal, a judge should do so by an order. That matter is discussed in Margarula at [35]-[38] and in Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 1657 ; (2008) 172 FCR 376 at [18] - [23]. I see no reason why I should not approach the matter in the way suggested by Finkelstein J at [23] of Centro and followed in Margarula . I will frame my refusal to recuse myself in terms of an order dismissing John Holland's notice of motion of 23 February 2011. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 111" id="cs1">12 There was no occasion for the primary judge to make an order refusing to disqualify himself because Cabcharge had not moved the Court for such an order. This failure may be attributable to the line of authority commencing with Barton v Walker (1979) 2 NSWLR 740 at 748 that formal applications for disqualification should not be entertained by a judge. Barton was approved by a Full Court of this Court in Parramatta Design and Developments Pty Ltd v Concrete Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 138 ; (2005) 144 FCR 264 at 275. This view has not commanded universal approval: see, for example, Brooks v Upjohn Company (1998) 85 FCR 469 at 476-7; Kirby v Centro Properties Limited (No 2) [2008] FCA 1657 ; (2008) 252 ALR 557 at 563-5; Margarula v Northern Territory [2009] FCA 290 ; (2009) 175 FCR 333 at 340-4. Whatever may be the correct view on the proper procedure to be observed where it is sought to have a judge disqualify him- or herself on the ground of apprehended bias, it is clear that, once the judge has made an order in the proceeding, that order may be impugned on the ground that the judge was disqualified: see Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2004] NSWSC 270 at [9] ; Parramatta Design at 275; Brooks at 475-6. This will be so even if the order is made on a mundane interlocutory procedural issue: see, for example, Brooks , where the appeal was brought from an order fixing a trial date.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 290" id="cs2">Ms Brownhill also took me to the decision of Brereton J in BAT and Finkelstein J in Kirby v Centro Properties Limited No 2 ( 'Centro' ) [2008] FCA 1657; 68 ACSR 439.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>