Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">bhp billiton limited v schultz  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">concurrent jurisdiction of different courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">cross-vesting legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">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="cp0.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">south australia identified as the place of the alleged wrong</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">plaintiff commenced proceedings in dust diseases tribunal of new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">plaintiff a resident of south australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">whether supreme court of south australia a "more appropriate" forum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">whether proceeding to be transferred "in the interests of justice"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">relevance of circumstance that jurisdiction of the dust diseases tribunal was regularly invoked</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">relevance of plaintiff's choice of forum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">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="cp0.13">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="cp0.14">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">relationship between cross-vesting applications and forum non conveniens.  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">choice of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">lex loci delicti</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">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="cp0.18">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">south australian statute provides for a once and for all assessment of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">whether new south wales law procedural or substantive in character.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">state parliaments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">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="cp0.23">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="cp0.24">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">full faith and credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">choice of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2004] HCA 61">lex loci delicti</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">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="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] WASC 115">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] WASC 115">cross-vesting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] WASC 115">construction of exclusive jurisdiction clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] WASC 115">transfer of proceedings to the supreme court of new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] WASC 115">action commenced in the supreme court of western australia   legislation:  jurisdiction of courts (cross-vesting) act 1987 (wa), s 5(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1994] TASSC 47">private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1994] TASSC 47">stay of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1994] TASSC 47">tortious act in japan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1994] TASSC 47">plaintiff resides in tasmania</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1994] TASSC 47">defendant resides in western australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1994] TASSC 47">this court has jurisdiction over action by virtue of the service and execution of process act (cth) 1992, s15(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1994] TASSC 47">failure to discharge onus on defendant to show that continuation of proceedings in this court would be inappropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1994] TASSC 47">application for a stay refused. oceanic sun line special shipping co inc v fay [1988] hca 32 ; (1988) 165 clr 197 and voth v manildra flour mills proprietary limited and anor [1990] hca 55 ; (1990) 171 clr 538 , applied. service and execution of process act (cth) 1992, s15(1).   cross-vesting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1994] TASSC 47">application to transfer to supreme court of western australia refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1994] TASSC 47">interests of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1994] TASSC 47">application of the common law of stay of proceedings ousted by the operation of the cross-vesting legislation with respect to causes of action that arise in australia. bankinvest ag v seabrook (1988) 14 nswlr 711 ; drive-in nominees pty ltd and ors v farrow mortgage services pty ltd a19/1993, applied.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 72">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 72">grant of interim stay pending proceedings in another jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 72">appropriate forum where same issues to be determined.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">action brought in australian state for damages for negligent accounting advice given in foreign country</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">loss suffered there and in australian state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">place of commission of tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">forum non conveniens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">appropriate forum.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">forum non conveniens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">relevant principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">vexatious or oppressive proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">choice of law clause in contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">non-exclusive jurisdiction clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">contract for sale of shares between english resident and australian corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">english resident commencing proceedings in english court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">corporation commencing proceedings in english companies court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">english resident commences proceedings in federal court invoking trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">application of decision of high court in oceanic sun line v fay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">extra-territorial operation of trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">motion dismissed.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">extra-territorial operation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">requirements for ministerial consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">effect of in relation to claims for damages and other orders.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">overseas resident</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.19">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">order in relation to disputed shares.  trade practices act 1974 s.87(1a) , s. 52  starke</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.20">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">the high court and the doctrine of forum non conveniens (1988) 62 alr 671  pryles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.21">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">judicial darkness on the oceanic sun (1988) 62 alr 774  reynolds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.22">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">forum non conveniens in australia (1989) 105 lqr 40  briggs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.23">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">forum non conveniens in australia (1989) 105 lqr 200  collins</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.24">cited from="[1989] FCA 482">the high court of australia and forum non conveniens: a further comment (1989) 105 lqr 364</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 932">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 932">alleged misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 932">franchising agreement.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 932">application for adjournment pending mediation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 932">mediation provisions of franchising code</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 932">requirement for court to consider if mediation may help resolve dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 932">factors which may help resolve dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 932">whether parties must attend mediation in person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 932">whether court must advise parties to use mediation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2010] FMCA 932">whether proceedings to be adjourned pending mediation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2010] FMCA 932">relevant factors for consideration.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">citing from="[2010] FMCA 932">venue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">citing from="[2010] FMCA 932">application to change</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">citing from="[2010] FMCA 932">mandatory matters for consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">citing from="[2010] FMCA 932">other relevant matters for consideration.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">citing from="[2010] FMCA 932">security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">citing from="[2010] FMCA 932">factors for consideration.  mediation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">citing from="[2010] FMCA 932">whether mediation may help resolve dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">citing from="[2010] FMCA 932">whether mediation under provisions of franchising code or by registrar of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">citing from="[2010] FMCA 932">whether proceedings to be adjourned pending mediation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 227">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 227">leave to commence proceedings against company in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 227">transfer of proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 227">whether proceeding should be transferred from western australia district registry to victoria district registry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 227">considerations include the interests of justice, efficiency and administration of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 227">similar proceedings in victoria district registry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 227">proceedings all arise from collapse of opes prime group companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1526">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1526">consideration of an application for leave pursuant to order 21, r 1 of the federal court rules for an applicant to take steps in a proceeding when that applicant has been declared a 'vexatious litigant'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1526">consideration of the elements of the contention that provisions of the reserve bank act 1959 (cth) and the currency act 1965 (cth) are constitutionally invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 1526">consideration of the effect of an unresolved reserved question as to monies paid into court by way of security in an appeal and reserved costs of that appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 1526">consideration of an application for leave to re-open a judgment of the full court of the federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 1526">consideration of a contention by the commissioner of taxation that there is no power in the federal court to re-open a judgment of the full court when the orders of the full court have been entered and thus perfected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 1526">consideration of the decision of the high court in djl v central authority [2000] hca 17 ; (2000) 201 clr 226 and its implications in the context of the federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 721">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 721">change of venue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 721">allegations of breach of duties by employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 721">claims for compensation and account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2006] FCA 721">engagement in western australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2006] FCA 721">performance in queensland</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2006] FCA 721">witnesses in both places</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2006] FCA 721">preponderance of documents in queensland</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2006] FCA 721">submission to non-exclusive jurisdiction in western australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">citing from="[2006] FCA 721">relevance of video-link</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">citing from="[2006] FCA 721">disparity of resources</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">citing from="[2006] FCA 721">possibility of trial being located in queensland and/or perth when witnesses finally identified</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 932" id="cs0">Although the Franchise Agreement has a specific law provision providing that it is governed by the laws of Queensland and that the parties submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Queensland courts, in this regard (and also in relation to the Queensland FT Act ) the Court adopts, with respect, what was said by the Federal Court in PEP Community Services Inc. t/as PEP Community Services v Jobs Futures Ltd [85] where the Federal Court said that: 9. It is to be noted that cl 35 is not an exclusive jurisdiction clause but I accept that it does disclose an intention on the part of the contracting parties to the litigation to prefer any dispute arising under the contract to be conducted in courts within the specified State: Australian Co-operative Foods Ltd  Anor v National Foods Milk Ltd [1998] FCA 376 and Aquila Resources Limited v Pasminco Limited [2004] FCA 39 at [36] - [41]. 10. However, I also accept the applicant's submission that such a clause in a change of venue application does not carry weight where federal legislation is involved: Plantagenet Wines Pty Ltd v Lion Nathan Wine Group Australia Ltd [2006] FCA 247 at [61] per Siopis J. It is true also that little weight is attached to such a clause where State legislation is involved providing that such legislation is reasonably uniform in nature: Westpac Banking Corporation v O'Brien [1997] ACTSC 107 ; Rothwells Ltd (in liq) v Connell [1995] QSC 30. In this regard, it may be that the Court is required to construe the New South Wales Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) but no particular difficulty in doing so was advanced in argument... [86] Conclusion --- transfer to Brisbane Registry
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 227" id="cs1">The reliance by ANZ on a Victorian law provision in the Securities Lending and Borrowing Agreement (SLBA) as a basis for the proceeding being transferred to the Victoria District Registry, taken alone is not a significant factor. There is no particular reason why a Court sitting in Perth could not determine the effect of Victorian law in relation to the dispute. The clause is not an exclusive jurisdiction clause but its content did disclose an intention to prefer any dispute arising under the contract to be conducted in a court within the specified State: Australian Co-operative Foods Ltd  Anor v National Foods Milk Ltd [1998] FCA 376 and Aquila Resources Limited [2004] FCA 39 at [36] - [41]. Notwithstanding this, however, such a clause in a change of venue application does not carry significant weight where federal legislation is involved: Plantagenet Wines Pty Limited v Lion Nathan Wine Group Australia Limited [2006] FCA 247 at [61]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1264" id="cs2">The respondent submits that this clause together with the convenience of witnesses tips the balance in favour of the hearing proceeding in the New South Wales Registry of this Court. 9 It is to be noted that cl 35 is not an exclusive jurisdiction clause but I accept that it does disclose an intention on the part of the contracting parties to the litigation to prefer any dispute arising under the contract to be conducted in courts within the specified State: Australian Co-operative Foods Ltd  Anor v National Foods Milk Ltd [1998] FCA 376 and Aquila Resources Limited v Pasminco Limited [2004] FCA 39 at [36] - [41]. 10 However, I also accept the applicant's submission that such a clause in a change of venue application does not carry weight where federal legislation is involved: Plantagenet Wines Pty Ltd v Lion Nathan Wine Group Australia Ltd [2006] FCA 247 at [61] per Siopis J. It is true also that little weight is attached to such a clause where State legislation is involved providing that such legislation is reasonably uniform in nature: Westpac Banking Corporation v O'Brien [1997] ACTSC 107 ; Rothwells Ltd (in liq) v Connell [1995] QSC 30. In this regard, it may be that the Court is required to construe the New South Wales Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) but no particular difficulty in doing so was advanced in argument.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1265" id="cs3">The respondent submits that this clause together with the convenience of witnesses tips the balance in favour of the hearing proceeding in the New South Wales Registry of this Court. 9 It is to be noted that cl 35 is not an exclusive jurisdiction clause but I accept that it does disclose an intention on the part of the contracting parties to the litigation to prefer any dispute arising under the contract to be conducted in courts within the specified State: Australian Co-operative Foods Ltd  Anor v National Foods Milk Ltd [1998] FCA 376 and Aquila Resources Limited v Pasminco Limited [2004] FCA 39 at [36] - [41]. 10 However, I also accept the applicant's submission that such a clause in a change of venue application does not carry weight where federal legislation is involved: Plantagenet Wines Pty Ltd v Lion Nathan Wine Group Australia Ltd [2006] FCA 247 at [61] per Siopis J. It is true also that little weight is attached to such a clause where State legislation is involved providing that such legislation is reasonably uniform in nature: Westpac Banking Corporation v O'Brien [1997] ACTSC 107 ; Rothwells Ltd (in liq) v Connell [1995] QSC 30. In this regard, it may be that the Court is required to construe the New South Wales Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) but no particular difficulty in doing so was advanced in argument.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1526" id="cs4">33 Although references occur in the Authorities to the 'inherent jurisdiction' of the Court ( McDermott v Richmond Sales (in liq) [2006] FCA 248 , per Kenny J; Plantagenet Wines v Lyon Nathan Wine Group Australia Ltd [2006] FCA 247 , per Sciopis J) the term is an inaccurate description of the 'incidental and necessary power' exercised by a statutory court ( DJL v Central Authority [2000] HCA 17 ; (2000) 201 CLR 226 at 241[25], per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron J, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ) as the term 'inherent jurisdiction' is a reference to a jurisdiction subsisting 'without the aid of any authorising provisions' ( R v Forbes ; ex parte Bevan per Menzies J, at p 7). The distinction between a jurisdiction or power derived by implication from statutory provisions and a jurisdiction drawn from the 'well of undefined powers available to the common law courts at Westminster'( Grassby v The Queen [1989] HCA 45 ; (1989) 168 CLR 1 at 16) is 'fundamental' ( DJL v Central Authority [26]).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 721" id="cs5">24 The respondents contend that there is limited scope of the claims that parties have agreed to submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Western Australia and that therefore the Court should not attach much weight to the non-exclusive jurisdiction clause: cf Plantagenet Wines Pty Limited v Lion Nathan Wine Group Australia Limited [2006] FCA 247. They contend that the three express particular breaches pleaded in [10] and [11] of the amended statement of claim relate to the actions of Mr MacDonald. However, they say all other respondents are parties to each breach so that the scope of the claim is well outside the scope of the non-exclusive jurisdiction claim. Here, however, it cannot be said that the breach of the confidentiality requirement constitutes a limited part of the claims that the parties have agreed to submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction. As has been explained in delineating the nature of the proceeding, it goes to the heart of the allegations under s 182 of the Corporations Act and the alleged breach of fiduciary duties: RP Meagher, JD Heydon, MJ Leeming, Meagher, Gummow and Lehane's Equity: Doctrines and Remedies, 4 th edn, Butterworths Australia 2002, 206, at [5-255]. The liability of Mr MacDonald is at the foundation of the liability of the other respondents. Therefore I consider that weight is to be accorded here to the non-exclusive jurisdiction clause.
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">JURISDICTION OF COURTS (CROSS-VESTING) ACT 1987 </title>
<title id="l1">JURISDICTION OF COURTS (CROSS-VESTING) ACT 1987 - SECT 5 Transfer of proceedings</title>
<title id="l2">SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS ACT 1992 </title>
<title id="l3">SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS ACT 1992 - SECT 3 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l4">SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS ACT 1992 - SECT 20 Stay of proceedings</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">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 82 Actions for damages.</title>
<title id="l8">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 87 Ancillary orders.</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">decision of administrative character made under enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct engaged in for purpose of making decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">review of decisions and conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">ambit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 3 , 5 , 6 .  broadcasting and television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">commercial broadcasting licences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">australian broadcasting tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">power to suspend or revoke licence if satisfied that licensee no longer fit and proper person to hold licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">controller of licensee not fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">whether licensee fit and proper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct before commencement of licence period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">broadcasting act 1942 (cth), s. 88.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1521">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1521">reliance by a minister on departmental advice and recommendations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1521">whether a decision was required to be made by a minister personally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1521">minister advised that a statutory requirement was not applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1521">whether written reasons prepared later should be regarded as the real reasons for the decision at the time it was made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1521">whether a presumption of regularity applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1521">whether the decision could or should be set aside in part</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1521">minister wrongly advised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1521">written reasons prepared later not the reasons present to the mind of the minister when the decision was made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1521">legal error established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 1521">no reason to withhold relief as a matter of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 1521">decision set aside in its entirety.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1521" id="cs0">13 The proceedings were commenced by application and statement of claim. However, the respondent successfully resisted PRL's proposal that the proceedings should continue on the pleadings. Instead French J decided on 27 September 2007, in accordance with the respondent's desires, that 'the matter should proceed by way of affidavit and written submissions' ( Phosphate Resources Limited v Turnbull, Minister for Environment and Water Resources [2007] FCA 1507 at [10] ).</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 13 Reasons for decision may be obtained</title>
<title id="l2">ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l3">ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 - SECT 133 Grant of approval</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 118">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 118">appeal from single judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 118">where challenge to notices issued by official receiver under s 77c of the bankruptcy act 1966 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 118">representative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 118">consideration of jurisdiction to review s 77c notices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 118">whether notices were oppressive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 118">nature of court's power to review notice on ground of oppression</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1748">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1748">consideration of grounds of review of powers conferred on the commissioner of taxation pursuant to section 264(1)(a) and section 264(1)(b) of the income tax assessment act 1936</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1748">scope of the powers conferred by the legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1748">considerations to be taken into account by decision-maker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1748">consideration of evidence going to ambiguity, reasonableness of notice period, compliance steps, costs of compliance and statement of reasons.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">whether board of australian crime commission had power to amend an authorisation and determination for a special investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">whether a new determination required under s 7c  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">acts interpretation act 190,1 s 33(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">meaning of "instrument"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">whether application limited to instruments of a legislative character</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">whether contrary intention precluded reliance on s 33(3)  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">australian crime commission act 2002 (cth), s 30(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">whether abrogated privilege against self-incrimination in relation to foreign offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 267">trade and commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 267">trade practices act 1974 (cth) s 155(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 267">notice to furnish information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 267">whether notice invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 267">whether matters identified in the notice capable of constituting a contravention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 267">whether notice discloses the basis for requiring the information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 267">whether s 155 notice can be used to identify witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] WASCA 213">company law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] WASCA 213">regulator's notice requiring production of records of superannuation fund</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] WASCA 213">production of incorrect collection of records</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] WASCA 213">some records of fund contained in collection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] WASCA 213">whether collection was within scope of notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">abolition of privilege against self-incrimination and grant of use immunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">whether impermissibly interferes with state courts. statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">amending or abrogating the common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">one australian common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">limited legislative competence of commonwealth and state parliaments to abrogate the common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">effect of abrogation by the commonwealth parliament  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">statutory duty to record reasons for a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">person summoned to appear at examination under australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">whether statute impliedly confers a right on a witness to be given the record</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">purpose of the statutory provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">no right to reasons under the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 101">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 101">statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 101">australian crime commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 101">appeal from a single judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 101">examination for purposes of a 'special operation/investigation'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 101">where appellant not yet charged but claimed that a charge was imminent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 101">whether australian crime commission act 2002 (cth) abrogates privilege against self-incrimination.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">overseas interest income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">derivation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">source of income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">offshore information notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">requirements for issue of notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">form and contents of notice   constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">judicial power of commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">incidental power -incontestable tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">compulsory acquisition of property.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">who required to hold reasonable belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">statutory purpose of offshore information notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">ultra vires.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1367">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1367">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1367">review of decision to issue notice under s. 33 of the australian securities commission act 1989</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1367">requirement of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1367">interlocutory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1367">whether serious question to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1367">balance of convenience.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 234">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 234">application under s. 70 australian securities commission act 1989 for order requiring compliance with s. 30 notice.  formal requirements of valid notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 234">prima facie validity of notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 234">onus on respondent to show notice not issued for s. 28 purpose.  ambit of commission's investigative powers under s. 13.  documents sought by notice must be shown by australian securities commission to relate objectively to affairs of named corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 234">meaning of expression "affairs of the body" as used in s. 30.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">commissioner of taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">access to places and documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">to require person to produce books, documents and other papers in his custody or under his control</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">random audit of top hundred companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">validity of decision to seek access to premises and to require production of documents of or relating to one such company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 263 , 264</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth),s.5(1)(d),(e).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.21">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">grounds on which further appellate court will interfere with intermediate court's exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">commissioner of taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">to require person to attend to give evidence and produce documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">notices to attend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">delegation of commissioner's power to subordinate officer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">facsimile of delegate's signature affixed to notice without his knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">signatory of notice authorized so to sign</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">validity of notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth),s 264(1)+.   + section 264(1) of the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth) provides: taxpayer or not, including any officer employed in or in connexion with any department of a government or by any public authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">(a) to furnish him with such information as he may require; and (b) to attend and give evidence before him or before any officer authorized by him in that behalf concerning his or any other person's income or assessment, and may require him to produce all books, documents and other papers whatever in his custody or under his control relating thereto."  legal practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">solicitors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">duty of confidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">income tax investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.15">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">notice to attend to give evidence and produce documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.16">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">whether solicitor obliged to comply with notice without client's consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.17">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">whether legal privilege confined to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings.  income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.18">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">commissioner of taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.19">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.20">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">to have full and free access to all buildings, places, books, documents and other papers for purposes of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.21">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">vouchers in locked room at bank</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.22">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">key in unlocked drawer in manager's office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.23">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">refusal to unlock door</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.24">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">whether bank under duty to locate or deliver particular documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.25">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth),s. 263.*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1983] HCA 9">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1983] HCA 9">trade practices commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1983] HCA 9">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1983] HCA 9">notice requiring supply of information and production of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1983] HCA 9">failure to comply on ground that information or documents might expose person receiving notice to civil penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1983] HCA 9">whether privilege against exposure to penalty applicable to non-judicial proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1983] HCA 9">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 45 , 76 , 155 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">notices pursuant to s.155 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">validity of notices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">whether exposure of person to liability for pecuniary penalty will excuse from furnishing information and producing documents as required by notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">necessary degree of certainty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">necessary element of relatedness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">where notice is partially invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">harsh, oppressive and unreasonable.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">cited from="[1980] FCA 94">notice under s.155 trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">cited from="[1980] FCA 94">validity of notice and lack of specificity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">cited from="[1980] FCA 94">whether information and documents required by commissioner relate to "matter that constitutes or may constitute a contravention of s.45"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">cited from="[1980] FCA 94">relevance of burden of providing documents and information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">cited from="[1980] FCA 94">relationship between s.155 notice and interrogatories.  trade practices act 1974 (cth.) ss.45 , 155 , 163a.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">cited from="[1980] FCA 94">notice under s. 155 trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">cited from="[1980] FCA 94">content of notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">cited from="[1980] FCA 94">reasonable exercise of investigative power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">cited from="[1980] FCA 94">reasonable relation to possible contravention of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.9">cited from="[1980] FCA 94">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 45 , 155 , 163a.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.10">cited from="[1980] FCA 94">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.11">cited from="[1980] FCA 94">whether full court will permit challenge to answers to stated case provided in action by another full court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.12">cited from="[1980] FCA 94">res judicata. the respondents issued notices to the appellants under s. 155 of the trade practices act 1974 . in earlier proceedings the appellants had unsuccessfully challenged the validity of these notices relying upon certain grounds (see melbourne home of ford pty. ltd. v. trade practices commission and bannerman [1979] fca 15 ; (1979), 36 flr 450). they then challenged the content of the notices before smithers j. of the federal court on the grounds that the notices were too wide, irrelevant and burdensome. the notices required the giving of information and production of documents. smithers j. dismissed the application (see melbourne home of ford pty. ltd. v. trade practices commission and bannerman (no. 2) [1979] fca 64 ; (1979), 40 flr 428). the appellants appealed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">cited from="[cases] sinodisp cth">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">cited from="[cases] sinodisp cth">notice by commission to furnish information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">cited from="[cases] sinodisp cth">validity of notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">cited from="[cases] sinodisp cth">application for declaration that requests improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">cited from="[cases] sinodisp cth">relevance of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">cited from="[cases] sinodisp cth">person to whom requests should be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">cited from="[cases] sinodisp cth">trade practices act 1974 , ss. 155 , 163a. the applicant sought a declaration, pursuant to s. 163a of the trade practices act 1974 , that certain questions put to it by the respondent (the chairman of the trade practices commission) under s. 155 of the act were not proper requests to furnish information within the meaning of s. 155.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">challenge to authorisation and determination made by resolution of board of first respondent under australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">instrument authorised investigation and determined it to be special investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether determination invalid because board's resolution was not a determination in writing that the investigation was a special investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether determination invalid because chair of board did not convene or attend meeting at which determination made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether determination invalid because of various deficiencies in resolution of the board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether determination invalid because board did not set out the reasons for decision including findings on material questions of fact and refer to evidence or other material on which those findings were based</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether determination invalid because purposes stated in determination exceed scope of investigation under act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether determination invalid because board did not actually draw conclusion as to whether ordinary police methods of investigation were likely to be effective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether determination invalid because board did not resolve class or classes of persons who were to be able to participate in investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether determination invalid because board did not identify the circumstances, or allegations, constituting the federally relevant criminal activity held: application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">all grounds of challenge to determination fail  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">challenge to a summons issued by second respondent under australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.13">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether summons invalid because determinations upon which they are based are invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.14">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether summons invalid because copy of determination did not accompany summons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.15">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether summons invalid because it did not require applicant to give evidence as "witness"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.16">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether summons invalid because it was not accompanied by written statement of rights and obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.17">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">whether second respondent could not have been satisfied that it was reasonable in all circumstances to issue summons held: application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.18">citing from="[2010] FCA 803">all grounds of challenge to summons fail</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">challenge to summons issued under s 28(1) of the australian crime commission act 2002 (cth) and subsequent examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">whether the summons was invalid because it stated that appellant was to appear before "an" examiner and not "the" examiner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">whether failure to attach to the summons a variation to the determination of the acc board meant that the requirements of s 28(2) were not met. held: appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">the use of "an examiner" does not invalidate the summons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">the determination attached to the summons met the requirements of s 28(2).  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">challenge to a notice to produce issued under s 29 of the australian crime commission act 2002 (cth) and production of things pursuant to the notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">whether the notice was invalid because it failed to specify person to whom production was to be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">whether production was unlawful because they were not produced to the relevant person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.9">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">meaning of "produce"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.10">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">whether the notice was invalid because it called for production of things "forthwith". held: appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.11">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">the notice, read as a whole, makes clear that the things were to be produced to the examiner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.12">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">the word "produce" in s 29(1) does not require the receiver to take actual physical possession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.13">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">"forthwith" was not an unreasonable time to require production.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 553">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 553">whether certain decisions and instruments made by the australian crime commission were invalid because the commission and its board failed to comply with relevant statutory provisions governing the making of those decisions and instruments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 553">decisions and instruments held to be valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 553">whether certain documents seized during the execution of a search warrant were protected from disclosure by legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 553">legal professional privilege attached to some documents (but not all)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 553">in respect of those documents originally protected by privilege, privilege held to have been waived</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2010] VSC 101">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2010] VSC 101">appeal against decision of an associate justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2010] VSC 101">application to discharge or vary summons for production of documents under s 596d of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2010] VSC 101">consideration of power to summon a person for examination about a corporations "examinable affairs" and for that purpose require production of books</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">citing from="[2010] VSC 101">consideration of the content of a summons for production of books under s 596d of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">citing from="[2010] VSC 101">corporations act 2001 (cth) s 596d.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 15">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 15">review of a decision of the australian crime commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 15">decision made under s 28 of the australian crime commission act 2002 (cth) to issue a summons to the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 15">whether the examiner made a jurisdictional error in failing to differentiate between a special operation and a special investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 15">where the examiner's record of decision contains an error of law on the face of the record</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 15">where no evidence or explanation given for the examiner's apparent error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 15">where examiner fundamentally misunderstood the statutory basis for his authority to issue the summons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 15">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 105">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 105">alleged failure to allow sufficient time to answer questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 105">alleged failure to allow adjournments of sufficient duration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 105">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 105">importance of understanding why information relevant to review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 105">onus of establishing ground of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 4">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 4">australian crime commission examiner issued notice to health services provider requiring production of medical records of adult and child patients pursuant to s 29(1)(b) australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 4">whether the examiner was obliged to consider the interests of the adult patients, the cost and impracticability of compliance, and alternative means of obtaining the information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 4">if so, whether those obligations were shown not to have been discharged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 4">whether the examiner was bound to make enquiries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 4">whether the examiner could have been satisfied that it was reasonable in all the circumstances to issue the notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 4">whether the examiner complied with the reasons requirement in s 29(1a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 4">whether the examiner was required to consider the best interests of the child patients and, if so, whether that obligation was shown not to have been discharged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">challenge to summons issued under s 28(1) of the australian crime commission act 2002 (cth) and subsequent examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">whether summons invalid because determination accompanying summons as required by s 28(2) was not a facsimile copy of the relevant determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">whether invalid because summons did not indicate that applicant had to appear "as a witness" and stated that applicant was to appear before "an" examiner and not "the" examiner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">whether invalid because summons failed to comply with s 29a(3) by not setting out rights and obligations in s 29b(3) and (4) in addition to those in s 29b(1) and (2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">whether examination unlawful because examiner failed to record in writing reasons for issuing summons before he issued the summons   held: application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">copy of determination provided complied with act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">evident that applicant was to appear as witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">summons was issued by examiner and returnable before him</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">s 29a(3) only requires a statement setting out the rights and obligations of a person served or otherwise given a summons by the commissioner or an examiner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">validation of summons under australian crime commission amendment act 2007 (cth) applies to examination pursuant to summons.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">challenge to notice to produce issued under section 29 of the australian crime commission act 2002 (cth) and production of dvds pursuant to notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">whether invalid because notice referred to determination of incorrect date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">whether invalid because notice failed to comply with s 29a(3) by not setting out rights and obligations in s 29b(3) and (4) in addition to those in s 29b(1) and (2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">whether invalid because notice did not indicate person to whom production was to be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">whether production unlawful because, even if notice did indicate person to whom production was to be made, dvds were not produced to that person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">whether invalid because notice required production of documents "forthwith"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.17">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">whether production unlawful because examiner failed to record in writing reasons for issuing notice before he issued the notice   held: application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.18">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">s 29 does not require reference to determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.19">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">s 29a(3) only requires a statement setting out the rights and obligations of a person served or otherwise given a summons by the commissioner or an examiner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.20">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">word "produce" in s 29(1) does not require production directly to person specified in notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.21">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">requiring production "forthwith" not unreasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.22">citing from="[2009] FCA 1027">validation of notice under australian crime commission amendment act 2007 (cth) applies to production pursuant to notice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 759">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 759">challenge to two summonses issued by second respondent under australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 759">whether summonses invalid because second respondent failed to record in writing reasons for issuing summonses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 759">whether summonses invalid because second respondent failed to record in accordance with act reasons in writing for issuing summonses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 759">whether second respondent could not have been satisfied that it was reasonable in all circumstances to issue summonses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 759">whether second summons invalid because it did not require applicant to give evidence as "witness"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 759">whether second summons invalid because it was not accompanied by written statement of rights and obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 759">whether second summons invalid because copy of determination did not accompany summons or, alternatively, determination invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 759">whether second respondent exercised power to issue summons correctly   held: application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 759">all grounds of challenge to summonses fail.    administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 759">challenge to authorisation and determination made by resolution of board of first respondent under australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 759">instrument authorised investigation and determined it to be special investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 759">whether determination invalid because chair of board did not convene or attend meeting at which determination made and determination in writing not under hand of chair of board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 759">whether determination invalid because purposes stated in determination exceed scope of investigation under act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 759">whether determination invalid because board did not actually draw conclusion as to whether ordinary police methods of investigation were likely to be effective in investigating federally relevant criminal activity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 759">whether determination invalid because of various deficiencies in resolution of board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 759">whether determination invalid because board did not resolve class or classes of persons who were to be able to participate in investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.17">citing from="[2009] FCA 759">whether determination invalid because board purported to consent to first respondent conducting investigation or intelligence operation under a law of a state without identifying law of state in question</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.18">citing from="[2009] FCA 759">whether determination invalid because board purported to authorise investigation of allegations comprising offences which head of special investigation suspects may be directly or indirectly connected with, or may be part of, course of activity involving commission of offences referred to earlier in determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.19">citing from="[2009] FCA 759">whether determination invalid because board did not set out findings on material questions of fact and refer to evidence or other material on which those findings were based   held: application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.20">citing from="[2009] FCA 759">all grounds of challenge to determination fail.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 86">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 86">australian crime commission examiner issued notice to health services provider requiring production of medical records of eight female aboriginal children pursuant to s 29(1)(b) australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 86">whether the best interests of those eight children was a relevant consideration which the examiner was required to take into account in issuing that notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 86">whether the examiner had regard to the best interests of those eight children</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 86">consideration of whether the best interests of those children was a "primary consideration"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 580">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 580">validity of determination by board of the australian crime commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 580">whether within ambit of the australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 580">whether determination exceeded powers of the board of the australian crime commission   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 580">validity of summons issued by the australian crime commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 580">whether examiner satisfied it was reasonable to issue the summons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 580">whether failure to record in writing the reasons for the issue of the summons a breach of s 25d of the acts interpretation act 1901 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 580">whether examiner's reasons a recent invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 580">whether summons issued in accordance with the australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 580">whether summons otherwise defective    practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 580">public interest immunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 580">redaction of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 580">effect on burden of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 580">consequences of allegedly unjustifiable failure to discover relevant documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 580">whether defence should be struck out    practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 580">further submissions after close of oral argument</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 580">requirement for leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 312">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 312">investigative function</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 312">validity of s 155 notices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 312">'matter' under investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 312">relevance of information sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 312">burdensome</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 312">unreasonableness of decision to issue s 155 notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 312">market definition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 312">market in australia</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 803" id="cs0">Mr Abbott's primary submission was that since neither Commissioner Keelty, nor an eligible Commonwealth Board member chaired the Board meetings on 14 June 2007 and 25 June 2008, those meetings were not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Act, specifically s 7E. It followed, so he submitted, that the resolutions of those meetings to make the third and fourth determinations, thereby extending the period of operation of the special investigation, were invalid and in breach of the Act. He submitted that since the Act conferred extensive coercive powers on the Commission and the Board, which intruded in a significant way on the liberty and privileges of individuals, the Act should be construed strictly in accordance with its terms. In making this submission, he relied heavily on the decision of Flick J in A B Pty Limited v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 119 (" AB ") at [19] to the effect that a provision of the Act: " ...must be construed according to its terms such that no greater power is in fact exercised than the words employed by the legislature permit ". </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 82" id="cs1">81 The primary judge considered the decision in A.B. Pty Limited v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 119 , where Flick J considered a number of factors which indicate whether the period of time allowed for production in a notice issued under s 29 is reasonable. His Honour also referred to the decision in Ganke v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1975) 25 FLR 98 .  85 There is no statutory requirement in the Act which requires that a notice under s29 specify a time for production, rather than require production "forthwith". The appellant gave authority to support a strict construction of s 29: AB Proprietary Limited v Australian Crime Commission  Sage [2009] FCA 119 ; Australian Crime Commission v NTD8 [2009] FCAFC 86 ; C Incorporated v Australian Crime Commission [2010] FCAFC 4. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 553" id="cs2">In the same case, at [89], the Full Court said: We agree that the sufficiency of the Statement of Reasons was open to criticism. The appellant was correct to draw attention to what counsel described as the 'formulaic approach' of the reasons and to the importance of observing the requirements of s 29(1A). As Flick J observed in AB Pty Ltd v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 119 ; (2009) 175 FCR 296 (AB) at [54] , an observation that was endorsed by this Court in NTD8 at [73], "[t]hose against whom the powers conferred by the 2002 Act are exercised are entitled to have confidence that the power is being lawfully invoked". In NTD8, as here, the Statement of Reasons, the Statement of Facts and Circumstances and the Legal Submissions in Support were formulaic and uninformative and did not focus attention on the specific considerations to which the Examiner had regard. Again they seem to bear the hallmarks of a standard form document (see the observations of this Court in NTD8 at [34]; Flick J in AB at [54] and Besanko J in GG v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 759 at [51] ).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] VSC 101" id="cs3">37 Moreover, the requirement for production of "all books and records relating to the affairs of [the] Bill Express [Group], including..." is, in the circumstances of this case, sufficient specification. In this regard, whether the books required to be produced are sufficiently "specified" for the purposes of s 596D(2) is to be considered "against the background of the knowledge and circumstances of the [examinee] and the contextual facts". [66] It was submitted that there was not sufficient specification because the applicants have to make a judgment about whether documents relate to the "affairs" of the company. The fact that the examinee may have to make a judgment as to whether a document falls within the description does not make the summons oppressive. [67] The question is whether the summons makes "reasonably clear" what documents must be produced. [68]  [55] Ibid 569---570. [56] Cf Fieldhouse v Commissioner of Taxation (1989) 25 FCR 187. Eg of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) s 264 ; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (1979) 143 CLR 499; Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 155 ; Pyne Board Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1982) 57 FLR 368; Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) s 29 ; AB Pty Ltd v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 119. [57] [2009] FCA 119. [58] S 29 provides:

 (1) An examiner may, by notice in writing served on a person, require the person:
 (a) to attend, at a time and place specified in the notice, before the person specified by the notice, being an examiner or a member of the staff of the ACC; and

(b) to produce at that time and place to the person so specified a document or things specified in the notice, being a document or thing that is relevant to a special ACC operation/investigation. 32 In AB Pty Ltd v Australian Crime Commission [57] Flick J considered s 29 of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) [58] which bears strong similarity to s 596D. Flick J said as follows:

 The accepted public importance of the functions entrusted to the Commission can be no reason to construe the power conferred by s 29 in any manner other than that which the words and the context naturally bear. Nor is there any reason to construe the term "specify" in s 29 in the phrase "a document or thing specified in the notice" in any different manner to the manner in which the same term is used elsewhere in that section. But that is not the manner in which any of the notices have been construed in the decided cases. The more obscure a category of "document or thing" may be, the greater may be the imperative for that "document or thing" to be described with a degree of specificity or definiteness so that the person upon whom a statutory notice is given may be capable of identifying that "document or thing" and thereafter producing it. [59]

His Honour concluded that:

 A document may be specified if the description of the document required to be produced is sufficiently certain to identify it to the person upon whom a notice is served --- even if that description may mean little (if anything) to a person without such knowledge. [60]

Thus, in that context, the term "specified" was construed as requiring sufficient description to identify to the person upon whom the notice is served the documents that must be produced. The authorities on other statutory provisions conferring coercive power to require production of documents make it clear that the documents required to be produced must be identified with sufficient clarity. [60]

Thus, in that context, the term "specified" was construed as requiring sufficient description to identify to the person upon whom the notice is served the documents that must be produced. The authorities on other statutory provisions conferring coercive power to require production of documents make it clear that the documents required to be produced must be identified with sufficient clarity. [61] This requirement is specifically expressed in s 596D in the prescription that the content of the notice must require production of "specified books" meeting the criteria in the two sub-paragraphs. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 15" id="cs4">35 In Australian Crime Commission v NTD8 [2009] FCAFC 86 ; (2009) 177 FCR 263 at 270, the Full Court endorsed the following observation by Flick J in AB Pty Ltd v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 119 ; (2009) 175 FCR 296 at 313:
 [T] he reasons as provided bear some of the hallmarks of a lack of attention being given by the examiner to the task being undertaken and some of the hallmarks of a standard form of reasons employed in such other instances upon which the examiner may have been called upon to exercise the power conferred by s 29. There is, for instance, not only the unacceptable brevity of the reasons provided but there is also a lack of attention as to whether the examiner was conducting a "special operation" or a "special investigation". The notices record that a "special operation" was being undertaken --- but the record of the reasons does not consider it appropriate to confine itself in a like manner. Those against whom the powers conferred by the 2002 Act are exercised are entitled to have confidence that the power is being lawfully invoked. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 105" id="cs5">And, upon an application seeking judicial review, the onus remains on an applicant to establish the excess of statutory power being alleged. An applicant " cannot make a bare assertion of impropriety and then fish for a case: he has the onus of establishing an improper exercise of power ": Australian Securities Commission v Lucas [1992] FCA 234 ; (1992) 36 FCR 165 at 177 per Drummond J. Thus, in VAAD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 117 at [45] Hill, Sundberg and Stone JJ regarded it as " trite law that the onus of establishing the factual foundation for a claim of a breach of natural justice or a failure to afford procedural fairness lies on the party alleging the breach... ". The onus also remains upon an applicant alleging any other excess or abuse of statutory power: Industrial Equity Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [1990] HCA 46 at [22] to [23] [1990] HCA 46 ; , 170 CLR 649 at 671 to 672 per Gaudron J; X v Australian Crime Commission [2004] FCA 1475 at [22] , [2004] FCA 1475 ; 139 FCR 413 at 419 to 420 per Finn J. See also: AB Pty Ltd v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 119 at [8] , [2009] FCA 119 ; 175 FCR 296 at 298. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 4" id="cs6">89 We agree that the sufficiency of the Statement of Reasons was open to criticism. The appellant was correct to draw attention to what counsel described as the 'formulae approach' of the reasons and to the importance of observing the requirements of s 29(1A). As Flick J observed in AB Pty Ltd v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 119 ; (2009) 175 FCR 296 ( AB ) at [54], an observation that was endorsed by this Court in NTD8 at [73], "[t]hose against whom the powers conferred by the 2002 Act are exercised are entitled to have confidence that the power is being lawfully invoked". In NTD8 , as here, the Statement of Reasons, the Statement of Facts and Circumstances and the Legal Submissions in Support were formulaic and uninformative and did not focus attention on the specific considerations to which the Examiner had regard. Again they seem to bear the hallmarks of a standard form document (see the observations of this Court in NTD8 at [34]; Flick J in AB at [54] and Besanko J in GG v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 759 at [51] ). However, deficiencies of this nature will not necessarily invalidate a notice: see, for example, AB at [59] per Flick J and SS v ACC [2009] FCA 580 at [97] per Jagot J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1027" id="cs7">The ACC Act gives the examiner the power to fix the time for production and this is not a case in which an Act is silent on the time within which a statutory obligation must be performed. In other words, this is a not a case in which the law must imply a requirement that the performance of a statutory obligation must take place within a reasonable time because, under the ACC Act, the examiner has the power to fix the time for performance. However, as the decision in A. B. Pty Limited v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 119 illustrates, that does not mean that the examiner's decision as to the time within which documents or things must be produced is unexaminable. I do not need to examine in detail the grounds upon which an examiner's decision as to the time for production may be successfully challenged because I am satisfied that "forthwith" was a reasonable time in the circumstances of this case, or at least that the applicant has not established that an examiner could not reasonably take the view that it was a reasonable time.  The applicant referred to the decision in Ganke v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia (1975) 25 FLR 98 and submitted that the examiner was bound under the ACC Act to allow a reasonable time for the production of the documents and things and that the respondent bore the onus of establishing that "forthwith" was a reasonable time. After the hearing, the applicant wrote to my chambers and referred me to the decision of Flick J in A. B. Pty Limited v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 119. In that case, his Honour referred to a number of factors which are to be considered in determining objectively whether the period of time allowed for production in a notice under s 29 is reasonable. He said (at [61]):

 "The objective surrounding circumstances would include the breadth of each particular notice and (perhaps) the need for a recipient to construe the terms of a notice; the classes of documents required to be produced; the apparent ability of the recipient to collate and thereafter produce the documents; the time of the year at which a notice is served and intervening disruption to business activities by reason of public or religious holidays; whether there has been a prior attempt to require the production of the same or similar documents; and the time in fact allowed. Some consideration could also be given to the amount of time an examiner thought appropriate; although that consideration would not be decisive. "

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 759" id="cs8">The applicant submitted that, by reason of s 25D of the Acts Interpretation Act , the second respondent was required to set out in his reasons his findings on material questions of fact and refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based, and that he had not done that. It was not in this case contended by the respondents, as it had been by the respondents (albeit in the context of s 29 of the Act) in A B Pty Ltd v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 119 ; (2009) 107 ALD 591 at 607 [54] per Flick J, that s 25D was engaged. I do not need to examine the question of whether the second respondent set out his findings or material questions of fact and referred to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based because, in my opinion, s 25D was not engaged and, even if it was, a failure to comply with its provisions would not lead to the conclusion that the second summons is invalid. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 86" id="cs9">34 On the appeal, NTD8 did not by notice of contention seek to uphold the decision at first instance on the basis that the Examiner had failed to comply with s 29(1A) by failing adequately to record reasons for his decision. It is apparent from the decision of Flick J in A.B. Pty Limited v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 119 ; (2009) 107 ALD 591 at [53] that the Examiner's reasons follow a template and we endorse his Honour's observations at [54] about their adequacy. We do not, however, have to resolve that issue. In this case, the Court has the benefit of the Statement of Facts and Circumstances and the Legal Submissions, which were not, apparently, made available for the purposes of the decision in A.B. Pty Limited v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 119 ; (2009) 107 ALD 591.  34 On the appeal, NTD8 did not by notice of contention seek to uphold the decision at first instance on the basis that the Examiner had failed to comply with s 29(1A) by failing adequately to record reasons for his decision. It is apparent from the decision of Flick J in A.B. Pty Limited v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 119 ; (2009) 107 ALD 591 at [53] that the Examiner's reasons follow a template and we endorse his Honour's observations at [54] about their adequacy. We do not, however, have to resolve that issue. In this case, the Court has the benefit of the Statement of Facts and Circumstances and the Legal Submissions, which were not, apparently, made available for the purposes of the decision in A.B. Pty Limited v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 119 ; (2009) 107 ALD 591.  63 The statutory power in s 29 of the ACC Act to obtain documents compulsorily is a provision which intrudes into the entitlement of any person to keep documents private and confidential. If exercised, the failure to comply with a notice carries significant consequences, including imprisonment for up to five years: s 29(3) and (3A). It should, therefore, be construed carefully according to its terms: see per French J (as he then was) in Commissioner of Taxation v Citibank Ltd (1989) 20 FCR 403 at 433 and per Flick J in A.B. Pty Limited v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 119 ; (2009) 107 ALD 591 at [19] . 61 In A.B. Pty Limited v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 119 ; (2009) 107 ALD 591 , Flick J considered the validity of notices issued under s 29 of the ACC Act. The complaint concerned the lack of particularity in the notices, the time allowed for compliance with the notices, and the relevance of the documents specified. It was argued that relevance was a relevant consideration which the examiner ought to have taken into account, but had not done so. In the result, the attack on the validity of the notices on that ground failed, simply because his Honour was not persuaded that the examiner had not considered the relevance of the documents to be produced: see at [55] and [56]. In the course of his reasons, Flick J at [20] said:
 It is (perhaps) surprising that the legislature has thus seen fit to specify few express constraints upon the exercise of the power conferred by s 29. But such constraints as have been imposed include the requirement that the document or thing required to be produced is "a document or thing that is relevant to a special ACC operation/investigation"; that the "document or thing" required to be produced must be "specified in the notice"; and the requirements that an examiner must be "satisfied that it is reasonable in all the circumstances" to issue a notice and that "the reasons for the issue of the notice" be recorded in writing. Given the width of the power conferred, it is (perhaps) equally surprising that that which may be the subject of a notice also has the potential to lack certainty --- a "document" can be readily identified; but that which constitutes a "thing" will presumably be resolved over time. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 580" id="cs10">SS submitted that paragraph 6 of the ATS determination did not record a finding by the Board that methods of collecting criminal information and intelligence not involving the use of powers in the ACC Act had not been effective; accordingly, it should be inferred that the Board did not comply with the requirements of s 7C(2). SS supported this submission by reference to the width of intrusive powers consequential upon a determination that an intelligence operation is a special operation (citing AB Pty Ltd v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 119 at [54] - [58]). The width of those powers, said SS, meant that the Board was obliged to create a determination in writing which, on its face, disclosed the Board's careful consideration and finding that methods not using the powers under the ACC Act had not been effective. Paragraph 6 of the ATS determination, however, was nothing more than a "formulaic recitation" of the provisions of the ACC Act itself. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 312" id="cs11">Undoubtedly, where a large number of documents or extensive information is sought within a short period of time, and where an extension of time is not possible, the specification of a short period of time may reflect upon whether the power was exercised in good faith, for a collateral purpose or was unreasonable: see, eg, A. B. Pty Limited v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 119 at [65] per Flick J. In fact, it was alleged that the burden imposed on the applicants was of such a magnitude that no reasonable person exercising the power under s 155 would have made the decisions giving rise to the issue of certain of the Notices. Reliance was placed on the principles stated by Lord Greene MR in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1947] EWCA Civ 1 ; [1948] 1 KB 223 and s 5(2)(g) of the ADJR Act. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION ACT 2002 </title>
<title id="l1">AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION ACT 2002 - SECT 7A Functions of the ACC</title>
<title id="l2">AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION ACT 2002 - SECT 22 Search warrants</title>
<title id="l3">AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION ACT 2002 - SECT 29 Power to obtain documents</title>
<title id="l4">AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION ACT 2002 - SECT 29A Disclosure of summons or notice etc. may be prohibited</title>
<title id="l5">AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION ACT 2002 - SECT 57 Application of Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act</title>
<title id="l6">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l7">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l8">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 11 Manner of making applications</title>
<title id="l9">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 13 Reasons for decision may be obtained</title>
<title id="l10">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l11">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 25D Content of statements of reasons for decisions</title>
<title id="l12">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 29 Meaning of service by post</title>
<title id="l13">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l14">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 30 Notice to produce books about affairs of body corporate or registered scheme</title>
<title id="l15">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 33 Notice to produce documents in person's possession</title>
<title id="l16">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l17">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 29 Courts to help each other</title>
<title id="l18">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 77C Power of Official Receiver to obtain information and evidence</title>
<title id="l19">INTELLIGENCE SERVICES ACT 2001 - SECT 28 Committee on Intelligence and Security</title>
<title id="l20">INTELLIGENCE SERVICES ACT 2001 - SECT 29 Functions of the Committee</title>
<title id="l21">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l22">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 264 Commissioner may require information and evidence</title>
<title id="l23">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 8C Failure to comply with requirements under taxation law</title>
<title id="l24">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 8D Failure to answer questions when attending before the Commissioner etc.</title>
<title id="l25">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 8E Penalties for failure to comply with requirements under taxation law</title>
<title id="l26">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l27">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION ACT 1989 </title>
<title id="l28">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION ACT 1989 No. 90 of 1989 - SECT 29 Commission may inspect books without charge</title>
<title id="l29">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION ACT 1989 No. 90 of 1989 - SECT 33 Notice to produce documents in person's possession</title>
<title id="l30">NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY ACT 1984 </title>
<title id="l31">NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY ACT 1984 No. 41, 1984 - SECT 4 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l32">NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY ACT 1984 No. 41, 1984 - SECT 28 Power to summon witnesses and take evidence</title>
<title id="l33">NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY ACT 1984 No. 41, 1984 - SECT 29 Power to obtain documents</title>
<title id="l34">NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY ACT 1984 No. 41, 1984 - SECT 30 Failure of witnesses to attend and answer questions</title>
<title id="l35">NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY ACT 1984 No. 41, 1984 - SECT 31 Warrant for arrest of witness</title>
<title id="l36">NATIONAL CRIMES COMMISSION ACT 1982 </title>
<title id="l37">NATIONAL CRIMES COMMISSION ACT 1982 No. 138, 1982 - SECT 3 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l38">NATIONAL CRIMES COMMISSION ACT 1982 No. 138, 1982 - SECT 7 Functions</title>
<title id="l39">NATIONAL CRIMES COMMISSION ACT 1982 No. 138, 1982 - SECT 29 Resignation</title>
<title id="l40">NATIONAL CRIMES COMMISSION ACT 1982 No. 138, 1982 - SECT 36 Employment of additional staff, consultants, </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">appeal from federal magistrates court order dismissing application for constitutional writs to quash decision of refuge review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">whether inquisitorial function of tribunal duly performed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">whether tribunal failed to provide procedural fairness to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">whether "jurisdictional error" in tribunal's decision.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 537">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 537">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 537">applicants travelling on indian passports, claiming persecution in india and bangladesh</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 537">inconsistent evidence as to nationality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 537">tribunal addressed necessary issues concerning nationality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 537">no jurisdictional error found.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 537" id="cs0">A recent decision of Siopis J in NBKE v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 126 illustrates that a Tribunal will make a jurisdictional error, if it treats a passport as conclusive of the issue of nationality, and for that reason does not address a claim that a passport does not evidence true nationality.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 414 Refugee Review Tribunal must review decisions</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 427 Powers of the Refugee Review Tribunal etc.</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>